(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)
ST. AUGUSTINE
ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS, Books V-VII
[De baptismo contra Donatistas.]
[Translated by the Rev. J. R. King, M.A., Vicar of St. Peter's in the East,
Oxford; and late fellow and tutor of Merton College, Oxford; revised by the
Rev. Chester D. Hartranft, D.D., Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical
History in the Theological Seminary at Hartford, Connecticut.]
BOOK V.
HE EXAMINES THE LAST PART OF THE EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO JUBAIANUS, TOGETHER
WITH HIS EPISTLE TO QUINTUS, THE LETTER OF THE AFRICAN SYNOD TO THE
NUMIDIAN BISHOPS, AND CYPRIAN'S EPISTLE TO POMPEIUS.
CHAP. 1.--1. We have the testimony of the blessed Cyprian, that the
custom of the Catholic Church is at present retained, when men coming from
the side of heretics or schismatics, if they have received baptism as
consecrated in the words of the gospel, are not baptized afresh. For he
himself proposed to himself the question, and that as coming from the mouth
of brethren either seeking the truth or contending for the truth. For in
the course of the arguments by which he wished to show that heretics should
be baptized again, which we have sufficiently considered for our present
purpose in the former books, he says: "But some will say, What then will
become of those who in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were
admitted without baptism?"(1) In this question is involved the shipwreck of
the whole cause of the Donatists, with whom our contest is on this point.
For if those had not really baptism who were thus received on coming from
heretics, and their sins were still upon them, then, when such men were
admitted to communion, either by those who came before Cyprian or by
Cyprian himself, we must acknowledge that one of two things occurred,--
either that the Church perished then and there from the pollution of
communion with such men, or that any one abiding in unity is not injured by
even the notorious sins of other men. But since they cannot say that the
Church then perished through the contamination arising from communion with
those who, as Cyprian says, were admitted into it without baptism--for
otherwise they cannot maintain the validity of their own origin if the
Church then perished, seeing that the list of consuls proves that more than
forty years elapsed between the martyrdom of Cyprian and the burning of the
sacred books,(2) from which they took occasion to make a schism, spreading
abroad the smoke of their calumnies,--it therefore is left for them to
acknowledge that the unity of Christ is not polluted by any such communion,
even with known offenders. And, after this confession, they will be unable
to discover any reason which will justify them in maintaining that they
were bound to separate from the churches of the whole world, which, as we
read, were equally founded by the apostles, seeing that, while the others
could not have perished from any admixture of offenders, of whatsoever
kind, they, though they would not have perished if they had remained in
unity with them, brought destruction on themselves in schism, by separating
themselves from their brethren, and breaking the bond of peace. For the
sacrilege of schism is most clearly evident in them, if they had no
sufficient cause for separation. And it is clear that there was no
sufficient cause for separation, if even the presence of notorious
offenders cannot pollute the good while they abide in unity. But that the
good, abiding in unity, are not polluted even by notorious offenders, we
teach on the testimony of Cyprian, who says that "men in past times, coming
to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism;" and yet, if the
wickedness of their sacrilege, which was still upon them, seeing it had not
been purged away by baptism, could not pollute and destroy the holiness of
the Church, it cannot perish by any infection from wicked men. Wherefore,
if they allow that Cyprian spoke the truth, they are convicted of schism on
his testimony; if they maintain that he does not speak truth, let them not
use his testimony on the question of baptism.
CHAP. 2.--2. But now that we have begun a disputation with a man of
peace like Cyprian, let us go on. For when he had brought an objection
against himself, which he knew was urged by his brethren, "What then will
become of those who in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were
admitted without baptism? The Lord," he answers, "is able of His mercy to
grant indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those
who, being admitted in all honesty to His Church, have fallen asleep within
the Church."(1) Well indeed has he assumed that charity can cover the
multitude of sins. But if their really had baptism, and this were not
rightly perceived by those who thought that they should be baptized again,
that error was covered by the charity of unity so long as it contained, not
the discord and spirit of the devil, but merely human infirmity, until, as
the apostle says, "if they were otherwise minded, the Lord should reveal it
to them."(2) But woe unto those who, being torn asunder from unity by a
sacrilegious rupture, either rebaptize, if baptism exists with both us and
them, or do not baptize at all, if baptism exist in the Catholic Church
only. Whether, therefore, they rebaptize, or fail to baptize, they are not
in the bond of peace; wherefore let them apply a remedy to which they
please of these two wounds. But if we admit to the Church without baptism,
we are of the number of those who, as Cyprian has assumed, may receive
pardon because they preserved unity. But if (as is, I think, already clear
from what has been said in the earlier books) Christian baptism can
preserve its integrity even amid the perversity of heretics, then even
though any in those times did rebaptize, yet without departing from the
bond of unity, they might still attain to pardon in virtue of that same
love of peace, through which Cyprian bears witness that those admitted even
without baptism might obtain that they should not be separated from the
gifts of the Church. Further, if it is true that with heretics and
schismatics the baptism of Christ does not exist, how much less could the
sins of others hurt those who were fixed in unity, if even men's own sins
were forgiven when they came to it even without baptism! For if, according
to Cyprian, the bond of unity is of such efficacy, how could they be hurt
by other men's sins, who were unwilling to separate themselves from unity,
if even the unbaptized, who wished to come to it from heresy, thereby
escaped the destruction due to their own sins?
CHAP. 3.--3. But in what Cyprian adds, saying, "Nor yet because men
once have erred must there be always error, since it rather befits wise and
God-fearing men gladly and unhesitatingly to follow truth, when it is
clearly laid before their eyes, than obstinately and persistently to fight
for heretics against their brethren and their fellow-priests,"(3) he is
uttering the most perfect truth; and the man who resists the manifest truth
is opposing himself rather than his neighbors. But, so far as I can judge,
it is perfectly clear and certain, from the many arguments which I have
already adduced, that the baptism of Christ cannot be invalidated even by
the perversity of heretics, when it is given or received among them. But,
granting that it is not yet certain, at any rate no one who has considered
what has been said, even from a hostile point of view, will assert that the
question has been decided the other way. Therefore we are not striving
against manifest truth. but either, as I think, we are striving in behalf
of what is clearly true, or, at any rate, as those may hold who think that
the question has not yet been solved, we are seeking for the truth. And
therefore, if the truth be other than we think, yet we are receiving those
baptized by heretics with the same honesty of heart with which those
received them whom, Cyprian supposed, in virtue of their cleaving to the
unity of tile Church, to be capable of pardon. But if the baptism of
Christ, as is indicated by the many arguments used above, can retain its
integrity amid any defect either of life or faith, whether on the part of
those who seem to be within, and yet do not belong to the members of the
one dove. or on the part of those whose severance from her extends to being
openly without, then those who sought its repetition in those former days
deserved the same pardon for their charity in clinging to unity, which
Cyprian thought that those deserved for charity of the same kind whom he
believed to have been admitted without baptism. They therefore who, without
any cause (since, as Cyprian himself shows, the bad cannot hurt the good in
the unity of the Church), have cut themselves off from the charity which is
shown in this unity, have lost all place of pardon, and whilst they would
incur destruction by the very crime of schism, even though they did not
rebaptize those who had been baptized in the Catholic Church, of how bitter
punishment are they deserving, who are either endeavoring to give to the
Catholics who have it what Cyprian affirms that they themselves have not,
or, as is clear from the facts of the case, are bringing as a charge
against the Catholic Church that she has not what even they themselves
possess?
CHAP. 4.--4. But since now, as I said before, we have begun a
disputation with the epistles of Cyprian, I think that I should not seem
even to him, if he were present, "to be contending obstinately and
persistently in defense of heretics against my brethren and my fellow-
priests," when he learned the powerful reasons which move us to believe
that even among heretics, who are perversely obstinate in their malignant
error, the baptism of Christ is yet in itself most holy, and most highly to
be reverenced. And seeing that he himself, whose testimony has such weight
with us, bears witness that they were wont in past times to be admitted
without a second baptism, I would have any one, who is induced by Cyprian's
arguments to hold it as certain that heretics ought to be baptized afresh,
yet consider that those who, on account of weight of the arguments on the
other side, are not as yet persuaded that this should be so, hold the same
place as those in past time, who in all honesty admitted men who were
baptized in heresy on the simple correction of their individual error, and
who were capable of salvation with them in virtue of the bond of unity. And
let any one, who is, led by the past custom of the Church, and by the
subsequent authority of a plenary Council, and by so many powerful proofs
from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian himself, and by the
clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the baptism of Christ,
consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be perverted by the error of
any man on earth,--let such an one understand, that they who then thought
otherwise, but yet preserved their charity, can be saved by the same bond
of unity. And herein he should also understand of those who, in the society
of the Church dispersed throughout the world, could not have been defiled
by any tares, by any chaff, so long as they themselves desired to be
fruitful corn, and who therefore severed themselves from the same bond of
unity without any cause for the divorce, that at any rate, whichever of the
two opinions be true,--that which Cyprian then held, or that which was
maintained by the universal voice of the Catholic Church, which Cyprian did
not abandon,--in either case they, having most openly placed themselves
outside in the plain sacrilege of schism, cannot possibly be saved, and all
that they possess of the holy sacraments, and of the free gifts of the one
legitimate Bridegroom, is of avail, while they continue what they are, for
their confusion rather than the salvation of their souls.
CHAP. 5.--5. Wherefore, even if heretics should be truly anxious to
correct their error and come to the Church, for the very reason that they
believed that they had no baptism unless they received it in the Church,
even under these circumstances we should not be bound to yield to their
desire for the repetition of baptism; but rather they should be taught, on
the one hand, that baptism, though perfect in itself, could in no way
profit their perversity if they would not submit to be corrected; and, on
the other hand, that the perfection of baptism could not be impaired by
their perversity, while refusing to be corrected: and again, that no
further perfection is added to baptism in them because they are submitting
to correction; but that, while they themselves are quitting their iniquity,
that which was before within them to their destruction is now beginning to
be of profit for salvation. For, learning this, they will both recognize
the need of salvation in Catholic unity, and will cease to claim as their
own what is really Christ's, and will not confound the sacrament of truth,
although existing in themselves, with their own individual error.
6. To this we may add a further reason, that men, by a sort of hidden
inspiration from heaven, shrink from any one who for the second time
receives baptism which he had already received in any quarter whatsoever,
insomuch that the very heretics themselves, when their arguments start with
that subject, rub their forehead in perplexity, and almost all their laity,
even those who have grown old in their body, and have conceived an
obstinate animosity against the Catholic Church, confess that this one
point in their system displeases them; and many who, for the sake of
gaining some secular advantage, or avoiding some disadvantage, wish to
secede to them, strive with many secret efforts that they may have granted
to them, as a peculiar and individual privilege, that they should not be
rebaptized; and some, who are led to place credence in their other vain
delusions and false accusations against the Catholic Church, are recalled
to unity by this one consideration, that they are unwilling to associate
with them lest they should be compelled to be rebaptized. And the
Donatists, through fear of this feeling, which has so thorough possession
of all men's hearts, have consented to acknowledge the baptism which was
conferred among the followers of Maximianus, whom they had condemned, and
so to cut short their own tongues and close their mouths, in preference to
baptizing again so many men of the people of Musti, and Assurae, and other
districts, whom they received with Felicianus and Praetextatus, and the
others who had been condemned by them and afterwards returned to them.
CHAP. 6.--7. For when this is done occasionally in the case of
individuals, at great intervals of time and space, the enormity of the deed
is not equally felt; but if all were suddenly to be brought together who
had been, baptized in course of time by the aforesaid followers of
Maximianus, either under pressure of the peril of death or at their Easter
solemnities, and it were told them that they must be baptized again,
because what they had already received in the sacrilege of schism was null
and void, they might indeed say what obstinate perseverance in their error
would compel them to say, that they might hide the rigor and iciness of
their hardness under any kind of false shade of consistency against the
warmth of truth. But in fact, because the party of Maximianus could not
bear this, and because the very men who would have to enforce it could not
endure what must needs have been done in the case of so many men at once,
especially as those very men would be rebaptizing them in the party of
Primianus who had already baptized them in the party of Maximianus, for
these reasons their baptism was received, and the pride of the Donatists
was cut short. And this course they would certainly not have chosen to
adopt, had they not thought that more harm would have been done to their
cause by the offense men would have taken at the repetition of the baptism,
than by the reputation lost in abandoning their defense. And this I would
not say with any idea that we ought to be restrained by consideration of
human feelings, if the truth compelled those who came from heretics to be
baptized afresh. But because the holy Cyprian says, "that heretics might
have been all the more impelled to the necessity of coming over, if only
they were to be rebaptized in the Catholic Church,"(1) on this account I
have wished to place on record the intensity of the repugnance to this act
which is seated deeply in the heart of nearly every one,--a repugnance
which I can believe was inspired by God Himself, that the Church might be
fortified by the instinct of repugnance against any possible arguments
which the weak cannot dispel.
CHAP. 7.--8. Truly, when I look at the actual words of Cyprian, I am
warned to say some things which are very necessary for the solution of this
question. "For if they were to see," he says, "that it was settled and
established by our formal decision and vote, that the baptism with which
they are baptized in heresy is considered just and lawful, they will think
that they are in just and lawful possession of the Church also, and all its
other gifts."(2) He does not say "that they will think they are in
possession," but "in just and lawful possession of the gifts of the
Church." But we say that we cannot allow that they are in just and lawful
possession of baptism. That they are in possession of it we cannot deny,
when we recognize the sacrament of the Lord in the words of the gospel.
They have therefore lawful baptism, but they do not have it lawfully. For
whosoever has it both in Catholic unity, and living worthily of it, both
has lawful baptism and has it lawfully; but whosoever has it either within
the Catholic Church itself, as chaff mixed with the wheat, or outside, as
chaff carried away by the wind, has indeed lawful baptism, but not
lawfully. For he has it as he uses it. But the man does not use it lawfully
who uses it against the law,--which every one does, who, being baptized,
yet leads an abandoned life, whether inside or without the Church.
CHAP 8.--9. Wherefore, as the apostle said of the law, "The law is
good, if a man use it lawfully,"(3) so we may fairly say of baptism,
Baptism is good, if a man use it lawfully. And as they who used the law
unlawfully could not in that case cause that it should not be in itself
good, or make it null and void, so any one who uses baptism unlawfully,
either because he lives in heresy, or because he lives the worst of lives,
yet cannot cause that the baptism should be otherwise than good, or
altogether null and void. And so, when he is converted either to Catholic
unity, or to a mode of living worthy of so great a sacrament, he begins to
have not another and a lawful baptism, but that same baptism in a lawful
manner. Nor does the remission of irrevocable sins follow on baptism,
unless a man not only have lawful baptism, but have it lawfully; and yet it
does not follow that if a man have it not lawfully, so that his sins are
either not remitted, or, being remitted, are brought on him again,
therefore the sacrament of baptism should be in the baptized person either
bad or null and void. For as Judas, to whom the Lord gave a morsel, gave a
place within himself of the devil, not by receiving what was bad, but by
receiving it badly,(1) so each person, on receiving the sacrament of the
Lord, does not cause that it is bad because he is bad himself, or that he
has received nothing because he has not received it to salvation. For it
was none the less the body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord, even in
those to whom the apostle said, "He that eateth unworthily, eateth and
drinketh damnation to himself."(2) Let the heretics therefore seek in the
Catholic Church not what they have, but what they have not,--that is, the
end of the commandment, without which many holy things may be possessed,
but they cannot profit. "Now, the end of the commandment is charity out of
a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned."(3) Let
them therefore hasten to the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, not
that they may have the sacrament of washing, if they have been already
bathed in it, although in heresy, but that they may have it to their
health.
CHAP. 9.--10. Now we must see what is said of the baptism of John. For
"we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that those who had already been
baptized with the baptism of John were yet baptized by Paul,"(4) simply
because the baptism of John was not the baptism of Christ, but a baptism
allowed by Christ to John, so as to be called especially John's baptism; as
the same John says, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from
heaven."(5) And that he might not possibly seem to receive this from God
the Father in such wise as not to receive it from the Son, speaking
presently of Christ Himself, he says, "Of His fullness have all we
received."(6) But by the grace of a certain dispensation John received
this, which was to last not for long, but only long enough to prepare for
the Lord the way in which he must needs be the forerunner. And as our Lord
was presently to enter on this way with all humility, and to lead those who
humbly followed Him to perfection, as He washed the feet of His
servants,(7) so was He willing to be baptized with the baptism of a
servant.(8) For as He set Himself to minister to the feet of those whose
guide He was Himself, so He submitted Himself to the gift of John which He
Himself had given, that all might understand what sacrilegious arrogance
they would show in despising the baptism which they ought each of them to
receive from the Lord, when the Lord Himself accepted what He Himself had
bestowed upon a servant, that he might give it as his own; and that when
John, than whom no greater had arisen among them that are born of women,(9)
bore such testimony to Christ, as to confess that he was not worthy to
unloose the latchet of His shoe,(10) Christ might both, by receiving his
baptism, be found to be the humblest among men, and, by taking away the
place for the baptism of John, be believed to be the most high God, at once
the teacher of humility and the giver of exaltation.
11. For to none of the prophets, to no one at all in holy Scripture, do
we read that it was granted to baptize in the water of repentance for the
remission of sins, as it was granted to John; that, causing the hearts of
the people to hang upon him through this marvellous grace, he might prepare
m them the way for Him whom he declared to be so infinitely greater than
himself. But the Lord Jesus Christ cleanses His Church by such a baptism
that on receiving it no other is required; while John gave a first washing
with such a baptism that on receiving it there was further need of the
baptism of the Lord,--not that the first baptism should be repeated, but
that the baptism of Christ, for whom he was preparing the way, might be
further bestowed on those who had received the baptism of John. For if
Christ's humility were not to be commended to our notice, neither would
there be any need of the baptism of John; again, if the end were in John,
after his baptism there would be no need of the baptism of Christ. But
because "Christ is the end Of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth,"(11) it was shown by John to whom men should go, and in whom,
when they had reached Him, they should rest. The same, John, therefore, set
forth both the exalted nature of the Lord, when he placed Him far before
himself, and His humility, when he baptized Him as the lowest of the
people. But if John had baptized Christ alone, he would be thought to have
been the dispenser of a better baptism, in that with which Christ alone was
baptized, than the baptism of Christ with which Christians are baptized;
and again, if all ought to be baptized first with the baptism of John, and
then with that of Christ, the baptism of Christ would deservedly seem to be
lacking in fullness and perfection, as not sufficing for salvation.
Wherefore the Lord was baptized with the baptism of John, that He might
bend the proud necks of men to His own health-giving baptism; and He was
not alone baptized with it, lest He should show His own to be inferior to
this, with which none but He Himself had deserved to be baptized; and He
did not allow it to continue longer, lest the one baptism with which He
baptizes might seem to need the other to precede it.
CHAP. 10.--12. I ask, therefore, if sins were remitted by the baptism
of John, what more could the baptism of Christ confer on those whom the
Apostle Paul desired to be baptized with the baptism of Christ after they
had received the baptism of John? But if sins were not remitted by the
baptism of John, were those men in the days of Cyprian better than John, of
whom he says himself that they "used to seize on estates by treacherous
frauds, and increase their gains by accumulated usuries,"(1) through whose,
administration of baptism the remission of sins was yet conferred? Or was
it because they were contained within the unity of the Church? What then?
Was John not contained within that unity, the friend of the Bridegroom, the
preparer of the way of the Lord, the baptizer of the Lord Himself Who will
be mad enough to assert this? Wherefore, although my belief is that John so
baptized with the water of repentance for the remission of sins, that those
who were baptized by him received the expectation of the remission of their
sins, the actual remission taking place in the baptism of the Lord,--just
as the resurrection which is expected at the last day is fulfilled in hope
in us, as the apostle says, that "He hath raised us up together, and made
us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.;"(2) and again, "For we
are saved by hope;"(3) or as again John himself, while he says, "I indeed
baptize you with water unto repentance, for the remission of your sins,"(4)
yet says, on seeing our Lord, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away
the sin of the world,"(5)--nevertheless I am not disposed to contend
vehemently against any one who maintains that sins were remitted even in
the baptism of John, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred by
the baptism of Christ on those whom Paul ordered to be baptized anew?
CHAP. 11.--13. For we must look at the point which especially concerns
the matter before us (whatever be the nature of the baptism of John, since
it is clear that he belongs to the unity of Christ), viz., what is the
reason for which it was right that men should be baptized again after
receiving the baptism of the holy John, and why they ought not to be
baptized again after receiving the baptism of the covetous bishops. For no
one denies that in the Lord's field John was as wheat, bearing an hundred-
fold, if that be the highest rate of increase; also no one doubts that
covetousness, which is idolatry, is reckoned in the Lord's harvest among
the chaff. Why then is a man baptized again after receiving baptism from
the wheat, and not after receiving it from the chaff? If it was because he
was better than John that Paul baptized after John, why did not also
Cyprian baptize after his usurious colleagues, than whom he was better
beyond all comparison? If it was because they were in unity with him that
he did not baptize after such colleagues, neither ought Paul to have
baptized after John, because they were joined together in the same unity.
Can it be that defrauders and extortioners belong to the members of that
one dove, and that he does not belong to it to whom the full power of the
Lord Jesus Christ was shown by the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the
form of a dove?(7) Truly he belongs most closely to it; but the others, who
must be separated from it either by the occasion of some scandal, or by the
winnowing at the last day, do not by any means belong to it, and yet
baptism was repeated after John and not after them. What then is the cause,
except that the baptism which Paul ordered them to receive was not the same
as that which was given at the hands of John? And so in the same unity of
the Church, the baptism of Christ cannot be repeated though it be given by
an usurious minister; but those who receive the baptism of John, even from
the hands of John Himself, ought to be afterwards baptized with the baptism
of Christ.
CHAP. 12.--14. Accordingly, I too might use the words of the blessed
Cyprian to turn the hearts of those that hear me to the consideration of
something truly marvellous, if I were to say "that John, who was accounted
greater among the prophets,--he who was filled with divine grace while yet
in his mother's womb; he who was upheld in the spirit and power of Elias;
who was not the adversary, but a forerunner and herald of the Lord: who not
only foretold our Lord in words, but also showed Him to the sight; who
baptized Christ Himself, through whom all others are baptized,"(8)--he was
not worthy to baptize in such wise that those who were baptized by him
should not be baptized again after him; and shall no one think that a man
should be baptized in the Church after he had been baptized by the
covetous, by defrauders by extortioners, by usurers? Is not the answer
ready to this invidious question, Why do you think this unmeet, as though
either John were dishonored, or the covetous man honored? But His baptism
ought not to be repeated, of whom John says, "The same is He which
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."(1) For whoever be the minister by whose
hands it is given, it is His baptism of whom it was said, "The same is He
which baptizeth." But neither was the baptism of John himself repeated,
when the Apostle Paul commanded those who had been baptized by him to be
baptized in Christ. For what they had not received from the friend of the
Bridegroom, this it was right that they should receive from the Bridegroom
Himself, of whom that friend had said, "The same is He which baptizeth with
the Holy Ghost."
CHAP. 13.--15. For the Lord Jesus might, if He had so thought fit, have
given the power of His baptism to some one or more of His chief servants,
whom He had already made His friends, such as those to whom He says,
"Henceforth I call you not servants, but friends;"(2) that, as Aaron was
shown to be the priest by the rod that budded,(3) so in His Church, when
more and greater miracles are performed, the ministers of more excellent
holiness, and the dispensers of His mysteries, might be made manifest by
some sign, as those who alone ought to baptize. But if this had been done,
then though the power of baptizing were given them by the Lord, yet it
would necessarily be called their own baptism, as in the case of the
baptism of John. And so Paul gives thanks to God that he baptized none of
those men who, as though forgetting in whose name they had been baptized,
were for dividing themselves into factions under the names of different
individuals.(4) For when baptism is as valid at the hands of a contemptible
man as it was when given by an apostle, it is recognized as the baptism
neither of this man nor of that, but of Christ; as John bears witness that
he learned, in the case of the Lord Himself, through the appearance of the
dove. For in what other respect he said, "And I knew Him not," I cannot
clearly see. For if he had not known Him in any sense, he could not have
said to Him when He came to his baptism, "I have need to be baptized of
Thee."(5) What is it, therefore, that he says, "I saw the Spirit descending
from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He
that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou
shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost?"(6) The dove clearly descended on Him after
He was baptized. But while He was yet coming to be baptized, John had said,
"I have need to be baptized of Thee." He therefore already knew Him. What
does he therefore mean by the words, "I knew Him not: but He that sent me
to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth
with the Holy Ghost," since this took place after He was baptized, unless
it were that he knew Him in respect of certain attributes, and in respect
of others knew Him not? He knew Him, indeed, as the Son of God, the
Bridegroom, of whose fullness all should receive; but whereas of His
fullness he himself had so received the power of baptizing that it should
be called the baptism of John, he did not know whether He would so give it
to others also, or whether He would have His own baptism in such wise, that
at whosesoever hands it was given, whether by a man that brought forth
fruit a hundredfold, or sixtyfold, or thirtyfold, whether by the wheat or
by the chaff, it should be known to be of Him alone; and this he learned
through the Spirit descending like a dove, and abiding on Him.
CHAP. 14.--16. Accordingly we find the apostles using the expressions,
"My glorying,"(7) though it was certainly in the Lord; and "Mine
office."(8) and "My knowledge,"(9) and "My gospel,"(10) although it was
confessedly bestowed and given by the Lord; but no one of them ever once
said, "My baptism." For neither is the glorying of all of them equal, nor
do they all minister with equal powers, nor are they all endowed with equal
knowledge, and in preaching the gospel one works more forcibly than
another, and so one may be said to be more learned than another in the
doctrine of salvation itself; but one cannot be said to be more or less
baptized than another, whether he be baptized by a greater or a less worthy
minister. So when "the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these.
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousnness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness,
revellings, and such like;"(1) if it be strange that it should be said,
"Men were baptized after John, and are not baptized after heretics," why is
it not equally strange that it should be said, "Men were baptized after
John, and are not baptized after the envious," seeing that Cyprian himself
bears witness in his epistle concerning envy and malignity that the
covetous are of the party of the devil, and Cyprian himself makes it
manifest from the words of the Apostle Paul, as we have shown above, that
in the time of the apostles themselves there were envious persons in the
Church of Christ among the very preachers of the name of Christ?
CHAP. 15.--17. That therefore the baptism of John was not the same as
the baptism of Christ, has, I think, been shown with sufficient clearness;
and therefore no argument can be drawn from it that baptism should be
repeated after heretics because it was repeated after John: since John was
not a heretic, and could have a baptism, which, though granted by Christ,
was yet not the very baptism of Christ, seeing that he had the love of
Christ; while a heretic can have at once the baptism of Christ and the
perversity of the devil, as another within the Church may have at once the
baptism of Christ and the envy of the devil.
18. But it will be urged that baptism after a heretic is much more
required, because John was not a heretic, and yet baptism was repeated
after him. On this principle, a man may say, much more must we rebaptize
after a drunkard, because John was sober, and yet baptism was repeated
after him. And we shall have no answer to make to such a man, save that the
baptism of Christ was given to those who were baptized by John, because
they had it not; but where men have the baptism of Christ, no iniquity on
their part can possibly effect that the baptism of Christ should fail to be
in them.
19. It is not therefore true that "by baptizing first, the heretic
obtains the right of baptism;"(2) but because he did not baptize with his
own baptism, and though he did not possess the right of baptizing, yet that
which he gave is Christ's, and he who received it is Christ's. For many
things are given wrongfully and yet they are not therefore said to be non-
existent or not given at all. For neither does he who renounces the world
in word only and not in deed receive baptism lawfully, and yet he does
receive it. For both Cyprian records that there were such men in the Church
in his day, and we ourselves experience and lament the fact.
20. But it is strange in what sense it can be said that "baptism and
the Church cannot in any way be separated and detached from one
another."(3) For if baptism remains inseparably in him who is baptized, how
can it be that he can be separated from the Church, and baptism cannot? But
it is clear that baptism does remain inseparably in the baptized person;
because into whatever depth of evil, and into whatever fearful whirlpool of
sin the baptized person may fall, even to the ruin of apostasy, he yet is
not bereft of his baptism. And therefore, if through repentance he returns,
it is not given again, because it is judged that he could not have been
bereft of it. But who can ever doubt that a baptized person can be
separated from the Church? For hence all the heresies have proceeded which
deceive by the use of Christian terms.
CHAP. 16.--Wherefore, since it is manifest that the baptism remains in
the baptized person when he is separated from the Church, the baptism which
is in him is certainly separated with him. And therefore not all who retain
the baptism retain the Church, just as not all who retain the Church retain
eternal life. Or if we say that only those retain the Church who observe
the commandments of God, we at once concede that there are many who retain
baptism, and do not retain the Church.
21. Therefore the heretic is not "the first to seize baptism," since he
has received it from the Church. Nor, though he seceded, could baptism have
been lost by him whom we assert no longer to retain the Church, and yet
allow to retain baptism. Nor does any one "yield his birthright, and give
it to a heretic,"(4) because he says that he took away with him what he
could not give lawfully, but what would yet be according to law when given;
or that he no longer has lawfully what yet is in accordance with law in his
possession. But the birthright rests only in a holy conversation and good
life, to which all belong of whom that bride consists as her members which
has no spot or wrinkle,(5) or that dove that groans amid the wickedness of
the many crows,--unless it be that, while Esau lost his birthright from his
lust after a mess of pottage,(6) we are yet to hold that it is retained by
defrauders, robbers, usurers, envious persons, drunkards and the like, over
whose existence in the Church of his time Cyprian groaned in his epistles.
Wherefore, either it is not the same thing to retain the Church and to
retain the birthright in divine things, or, if every one who retains the
Church also retains the birthright, then all those wicked ones do not
retain the Church who yet both seem and are allowed by every one of us to
give baptism within the Church; for no one, save the man who is wholly
ignorant of sacred things, would say that they retain the birthright in
sacred things
CHAP. 17.--22. But, having considered and handled all these points, we
have now come to that peaceful utterance of Cyprian at the end of the
epistle, with which I am never sated. though I read and re-read it again
and again,--so great is the pleasantness of brotherly love which breathes
forth from it, so great the sweetness of charity in which it abounds.
"These things," he says, "we have written unto you, dearest brother,
shortly, according to our poor ability, prescribing to or prejudging no
one, lest each bishop should not do what he thinks right, in the free
exercise of his own will. We, so far as in us lies, do not contend on the
subject of heretics with our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with whom we
maintain concord and peace in the Lord; especially as the apostle also
says, 'If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither
the churches of God.'(1) We observe patiently and gently charity of spirit,
the honor of our brotherhood, the bond of faith, the harmony of the
priesthood. For this reason also, to the best of our poor ability, by the
permission and the inspiration of God we have written this treatise on 'The
Good of Patience,' which we have sent to you in consideration of our mutual
love."(2)
23. There are many things to be considered in these words, wherein the
Brightness of Christian charity shines forth in this man, who "loved the
beauty of the Lord's house, and the place of the tabernacle of His
habitation."(3) First, that he did not conceal what he felt; then, that he
set it forth so gently and peacefully, in that he maintained the peace of
the Church with those who thought otherwise, because he understood how
great healthfulness was bound up in the bond of peace, loving it so much,
and maintaining it with sobriety, seeing and feeling that even men who
think differently may entertain their several sentiments with saving
charity. For he would not say that he could maintain divine concord or the
peace of the Lord with evil men; for the good man can observe peace towards
wicked men, but he cannot be united with them in the peace which they have
not. Lastly, that prescribing to no one, and prejudging no one, lest each
bishop should not do what he thinks right in the free exercise of his own
will, he has left for us also, whatsoever we may be, a place for treating
peacefully of those things with him. For he is present, not only in his
letters, but by that very charity which existed in so extraordinary a
degree in him, and which can never die. Longing, therefore, with the aid of
his prayers, to cling to and be in union with him, if I be not hindered by
the unmeetness of my sins, I will learn if I can through his letters with
how great peace and comfort the Lord administered His Church through him;
and, putting on the bowels of humility through the moving influence of his
discourse, if, in common with the Church at large, I entertain any doctrine
more true than his, I will not prefer my heart to his, even in the point in
which he, though holding different views, was yet not severed from the
Church throughout the world. For in that, when that question was yet
undecided for want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed from
those of many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great moderation, that
he would not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any
stain of schism, a greater strength of excellence appeared in him than
would have been shown if, without that virtue, he had held views on every
point not only true, but coinciding with their own. Nor should I be acting
as he would wish, if I were to pretend to prefer his talent and his fluency
of discourse and copiousness of learning to the holy Council of all
nations, whereat he was assuredly present through the unity of his spirit,
especially as he is now placed in such full light of truth as to see with
perfect certainty what he was here seeking in the spirit of perfect peace.
For out of that rich abundance he smiles at all that here seems eloquence
in us, as though it were the first essay of infancy; there he sees by what
rule of piety he acted here, that nothing should be dearer in the Church to
him than unity. There, too, with unspeakable delight he beholds with what
prescient and most merciful providence the Lord, that He might heal our
swellings, "chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise,"(4)
and, in the ordering of the members of His Church, placed all things in
such a healthful way, that men should not say that they were chosen to the
help of the gospel for their own talent or learning, of whose source they
yet were ignorant, and so be puffed up with deadly pride. Oh, how Cyprian
rejoices! With how much more perfect calmness does he behold how greatly it
conduces to the health of the human race, that in the writings even of
Christian and pious orators there should be found what merits blame, and in
the writings of the fishermen there should nothing of the sort be found!
And so I, being fully assured of this joy of that holy soul, neither in any
way venture to think or say that my writings are free from every kind of
error, nor, in opposing that opinion of his, wherein it seemed to him that
those who came from among heretics were to be received otherwise than
either they had been in former days, as he himself bears witness, or are
now received, as is the reasonable custom, confirmed by a plenary Council
of the whole Christian world, do I set against him my own view, but that of
the holy Catholic Church, which he so loved and loves, in which he brought
forth such abundant fruit with tolerance, whose entirety he himself was
not, but in whose entirety he remained; whose root he never left, but,
though he already brought forth fruit from its root, he was purged by the
heavenly Husbandman that he should bring forth more fruit;(1) for whose
peace and safety, that the wheat might not be rooted out together with the
tares, he both reproved with the freedom of truth, and endured with the
grace of charity, so many evils on the part of men who were placed in unity
with himself.
CHAP. 18.--24. Whence Cyprian himself(2) again admonishes us with the
greatest fullness, that many who were dead in their trespasses and sins,
although they did not belong to the body of Christ, and the members of that
innocent and guileless dove (so that if she alone baptized, they certainly
could not baptize), yet to all appearance seemed both to be baptized and to
baptize within the Church. And among them, however dead they are, their
baptism nevertheless lives, which is not dead, and death shall have no more
dominion over it. Since, therefore, there be dead men within the Church,
nor are they concealed, for else Cyprian would not have spoken of them so
much, who either do not belong at all to that living dove, or at least do
not as yet belong to her; and since there be dead men without, who yet more
clearly do not belong to her at all, or not as yet; and since it is true
that "another man cannot be quickened by one who himself liveth not,"--it
is therefore clear that those who within are baptized by such persons, if
they approach the sacrament with true conversion of heart, are quickened by
Him whose baptism it is. But if they renounce the world in word and not in
deed, as Cyprian declares to be the case with some who are within, it is
then manifest that they are not themselves quickened unless they be
converted, and yet that they have true baptism even though they be not
converted. Whence also it is likewise clear that those who are dead
without, although they neither" live themselves, nor quicken others," yet
have the living baptism, which would profit them unto life so soon as they
should be converted unto peace.
CHAP. 19.--25. Wherefore, as regards those who received the persons who
came from heresy in the same baptism of Christ with which they had been
baptized outside the Church, and said "that they followed ancient custom,"
as indeed the Church now receives such, it is in vain urged against them
"that among the ancients there were as yet only the first beginning of
heresy and schisms,(3) so that those were involved in them who were
seceders from the Church, and had originally been baptized within the
Church, so that it was not necessary that they should be baptized again
when they returned and did penance." For so soon as each several heresy
existed, and departed from the communion of the Catholic Church, it was
possible that, I will not even say the next day, but even on that very day,
its rotaries might have baptized some who flocked to them. And therefore if
this was the old custom, that they should be so received into the Church
(as could not be denied even by those who maintained the contrary part in
the discussion), there can be no doubt in the mind of any one who pays
careful attention to the matter, that those also were so received who had
been baptized without in heresy.
26. But I cannot see what show of reason there is in this, that the
name of "erring sheep"(4) should be denied to one whose lot it has been
that, while seeking the salvation which is in Christ, he has fallen into
the error of heretics, and been baptized in their body; while he is held to
have become a sheep already within the body of the Catholic Church herself,
who has renounced the world in words and not in deeds, and has received
baptism in such falseness of heart as this. Or if such an one also does not
become a sheep unless after turning to God with a true heart, then, as he
is not baptized at the time when he becomes a sheep, if he had been already
baptized, but was not yet a sheep; so he too, who comes from the heretics
that he may become a sheep, is not then to be baptized if he had been
already baptized with the same baptism, though he was not yet a sheep.
Wherefore, since even all the bad that are within--the covetous, the
envious, the drunkards, and those that live contrary to the discipline of
Christ--may be deservedly called liars, and in darkness, and dead, and
antichrists, do they yet therefore not baptize, on the ground that "there
can be nothing common between truth and falsehood, between light and
darkness, between death and immortality, between Antichrist and Christ?"(1)
27. He makes an assumption, then, not "of mere custom," but "of the
reason of truth itself,"(2) when he says that the sacrament of God cannot
be turned to error by the error of any men, since it is declared to exist
even in those who have erred. Assuredly the Apostle John says most plainly,
"He that hateth his brother is in darkness even until now;"(3) and again,
"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer;"(4) and why, therefore, do
they baptize those within the Church whom Cyprian himself declares to be in
the envy of malice?(5)
CHAP. 20. How does a murderer cleanse and sanctify the water?(6) How
can darkness bless the oil? But if God is present in His sacraments to
confirm His words by whomsoever the sacraments may be administered, then
both the sacraments of God are everywhere valid, and evil men whom they
profit not are everywhere perverse.
28. But what kind of argument is this, that "a heretic must be
considered not to have baptism, because he has not the Church?" And it must
be acknowledged that "when he is baptized, he is questioned about the
Church."(7) Just as though the same question about the Church were not put
in baptism to him who within the Church renounces the world in word and not
in deed. As therefore his false answer does not prevent what he receives
from being baptism, so also the false reply of the other about the holy
Church does not prevent what he receives from being baptism; and as the
former, if he afterwards fulfill with truth what he promised in falsehood,
does not receive a second baptism, but only an amended life, so also in the
case of the latter, if he come afterwards to the Church about which he gave
a false answer to the question put to him, thinking that he had it when he
had it not, the Church herself which he did not possess is given him, but
what he had received is not repeated. But I cannot tell why it should be,
that while God can "sanctify the oil" in answer to the words which proceed
out of the mouth of a murderer, "He yet cannot sanctify it on the altar
reared by a heretic," unless it be that He who is not hindered by the false
conversion of the heart of man within the Church is hindered by the false
erection of some wood without from deigning to be present in His
sacraments, though no falseness on the part of men can hinder Him. If,
therefore, what is said in the gospel, that "God heareth not sinners,"(8)
extends so far that the sacraments cannot be celebrated by a sinner, how
then does He hear a murderer praying, either over the water of baptism, or
over the oil, or over the eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom his
hand is laid? All which things are nevertheless done, and are valid, even
at the hands of murderers, that is, at the hands of those who hate their
brethren, even within, in the Church itself. Since "no one can give what he
does not possess himself,"(9) how does a murderer give the Holy Spirit? And
yet such an one even baptizeth within the Church. It is God, therefore,
that gives the Holy Spirit even when a man of this kind is baptizing.
CHAP. 21.--29. But as to what he says, that "he who comes to the Church
is to be baptized and renewed, that within he may be hallowed through the
holy,"(9) what will he do, if within also he meets with those who are not
holy? Or can it be that the murderer is holy? And if the reason for his
being baptized in the Church is that "he should put off this very thing
also that he, being a man that sought to come to God, fell, through the
deceit of error, on one profane,"(9) where is he afterwards to put off
this, that he may chance, while seeking a man of God within the Church
itself, to have fallen, through the deceit of error, on a murderer? If
"there cannot be in a man something that is void and something that is
valid,"(1) why is it possible that in a murderer the sacrament should be
holy and his heart unholy? If "whosoever cannot give the Holy Spirit cannot
baptize,"(1) why does the murderer baptize within the Church? Or how has
the murderer the Holy Spirit, when every one that has the Holy Spirit is
filled with light, but "he who hates his brother is still in darkness?"(2)
If because "there is one baptism, and one Spirit,"(1) therefore they cannot
have the one baptism who have not the one Spirit, why do the innocent man
and the murderer within the Church have the one baptism and not have the
one Spirit? So therefore the heretic and the Catholic may have the one
baptism, and yet not have the one Church, as in the Catholic Church the
innocent man and the murderer may have the one baptism, though they have
not the one Spirit; for as there is one baptism, so there is one Spirit and
one Church. And so the result is, that in each person we must acknowledge
what he already has, and to each person we must give what he has not. If
"nothing can be confirmed and ratified with God which has been done by
those whom God calls His enemies and foes,"(3) why is the baptism confirmed
which is given by murderers? Are we not to call murderers the enemies and
foes of the Lord? But "he that hateth his brother is a murderer." How then
did they baptize who hated Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, and thereby
hated Jesus Himself, since He Himself said to Saul, "Why persecutest thou
me?"(4) when he was persecuting His servants, and since at the last He
Himself shall say, "Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these
that are mine, ye did it not to me?"(5) Wherefore all who go out from us
are not of us, but not all who are with us are of us; just as when men
thresh, all that flies from the threshing-floor is shown not to be corn,
but not all that remains there is therefore corn. And so John too says,
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of
us, they would no doubt have continued with us."(6) Wherefore God gives the
sacrament of grace even through the hands of wicked men, but the grace
itself only by Himself or through His saints. And therefore He gives
remission of sins either of Himself, or through the members of that dove to
whom He says, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and
whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."(7) But since no one can
doubt that baptism, which is the sacrament of the remission of sins, is
possessed even by murderers, who are yet in darkness because the hatred of
their brethren is not excluded from their hearts, therefore either no
remission of sins is given to them if their baptism is accompanied by no
change of heart for the better, or if the sins are remitted, they at once
return on them again. And we learn that the baptism is holy in itself,
because it is of God; and whether it be given or whether it be received by
men of such like character, it cannot be polluted by any perversity of
theirs, either within, or yet outside the Church.
CHAP. 22.--30. Accordingly we agree with Cyprian that "heretics cannot
give remission of sins;"(3) but we maintain that they can give baptism,--
which indeed in them, both when they give and when they receive it, is
profitable only to their destruction, as misusing so great a gift of God;
just as also the malicious and envious, whom Cyprian himself acknowledges
to be within the Church, cannot give remission of sins, while we all
confess that they can give baptism. For if it was said of those who have
sinned against us, "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will
your Father forgive your trespasses,"(8) how much more impossible is it
that their sins should be forgiven who hate the brethren by whom they are
loved, and are baptized in that very hatred; and yet when they are brought
to the right way, baptism is not given them anew, but that very pardon
which they did not then deserve is granted them in their true conversion?
And so even what Cyprian wrote to Quintus, and what, in conjunction with
his colleagues Liberalis, Caldonius, Junius, and the rest, he wrote to
Saturninus, Maximus, and others, is all found, on due consideration, to be
in no wise meet to be preferred as against the agreement of the whole
Catholic Church, of which they rejoiced that they were members, and from
which they neither cut themselves away nor allowed others to be cut away
who held a contrary opinion, until at length, by the will of the Lord, it
was made manifest, by a plenary Council many years afterwards, what was the
more perfect way, and that not by the institution of any novelty, but by
confirming what was old.
CHAP. 23.--31. Cyprian writes also to Pompeius(9) about this selfsame
matter, and clearly shows in that letter that Stephen, who, as we learn,
was then bishop of the Roman Church, not only did not agree with him upon
the points before us, but even wrote and taught the opposite views. But
Stephen certainly did not "communicate with heretics,"(1) merely because he
did not dare to impugn the baptism of Christ, which he knew remained
perfect in the midst of their perversity. For if none have baptism who
entertain false views about God, it has been proved sufficiently, in my
opinion, that this may happen even within the Church. "The apostles,"
indeed, "gave no injunctions on the point;"(1) but the custom, which is
opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic
tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole
Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the
apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.
32. But it will be urged that it is written of heretics that "they are
condemned of themselves."(2) What then? are they not also condemned of
themselves to whom it was said, "For wherein thou judgest another, thou
condemnest thyself?"(3) But to these the apostle says, "Thou that preachest
a man should not steal, dost thou steal?"(4) and so forth. And such truly
were they who, being bishops and established in Catholic unity with Cyprian
himself, used to plunder estates by treacherous frauds, preaching all the
time to the people the words of the apostle, who says, "Nor shall
extortioners inherit the kingdom of God."(5)
33. Wherefore I will do no more than run shortly through the other
sentiments founded on the same rules, which are in the aforesaid letter
written to Pompeius. By what authority of holy Scripture is it shown that
"it is against the commandment of God that persons coming from the society
of heretics, if they have already there received the baptism of Christ, are
not baptized again?"(6) But it is clearly shown that many pretended
Christians, though they are not joined in the same bond of charity with the
saints, without which anything holy that they may have been able to possess
is of no profit to them, yet have baptism in common with the saints, as has
been already sufficiently proved with the greatest fullness. He says "that
the Church, and the Spirit, and baptism, are mutually incapable of
separation from each other, and therefore" he wishes that "those who are
separated from the Church and the Holy Spirit should be understood to be
separated also from baptism."(6) But if this is the case, then when any one
has received baptism in the Catholic Church, it remains so long in him as
he himself remains in the Church, which is not so. For it is not restored
to him when he returns, just because he did not lose it when he seceded.
But as the disaffected sons have not the Holy Spirit in the same manner as
the beloved sons, and yet they have baptism; so heretics also have not the
Church as Catholics have, and yet they have baptism. "For the Holy Spirit
of discipline will flee deceit,"(7) and yet baptism will not flee from it.
And so, as baptism can continue in one from whom the Holy Spirit withdraws
Himself, so can baptism continue where the Church is not. But if "the
laying on of hands" were not "applied to one coming from heresy,"(8) he
would be as it were judged to be wholly blameless; but for the uniting of
love, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which any
other holy thing that there may be in a man is profitless to his salvation,
hands are laid on heretics when they are brought to a knowledge of the
truth.(9)
CHAP. 24.--34. I remember that I have already discussed at sufficient
length the question of "the temple of God," and how this saying is to be
taken, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ."(10) For neither are the covetous the temple of God, since it is
written, "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"(11) And
Cyprian has adduced the testimony of Paul to the fact that covetousness is
idolatry. But men put on Christ, sometimes so far as to receive the
sacrament, sometimes so much further as to receive holiness of life. And
the first of these is common to good and bad alike; the second, peculiar to
the good and pious. Wherefore, if "baptism cannot be without the Spirit,"
then heretics have the Spirit also,--but to destruction, not to salvation,
just as was the case with Saul.(12) For in the Holy Spirit devils are cast
out through the name of Christ, which even he was able to do who was
without the Church, which called forth a suggestion from the disciples to
their Lord.(13) Just as the covetous have the Holy Spirit, who yet are not
the temple of God. For "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"
If therefore the covetous have not the Spirit of God, and yet have baptism,
it is possible for baptism to exist without the Spirit of God.
35. If therefore heresy is rendered "unable to engender sons to God
through Christ, because it is not the bride of Christ,"(1) neither can that
crowd of evil men established within the Church, since it is also not the
bride of Christ; for the bride of Christ is described as being without spot
or wrinkle.(2) Therefore either not all baptized persons are the sons of
God, or even that which is not the bride can engender the sons of God. But
as it is asked whether "he is spiritually born who has received the baptism
of Christ in the midst of heretics,"(3) so it may be asked whether he is
spiritually born who has received the baptism of Christ in the Catholic
Church, without being turned to God in a true heart, of whom it cannot be
said that he has not received baptism.
CHAP. 25.--36. I am unwilling to go on to handle again what Cyprian
poured forth with signs of irritation against Stephen, as it is, moreover,
quite unnecessary. For they are but the selfsame arguments which have
already been sufficiently discussed; and it is better to pass over those
points which involved the danger of baneful dissension. But Stephen thought
that we should even hold aloof from those who endeavored to destroy the
primitive custom in the matter of receiving heretics; whereas Cyprian,
moved by the difficulty of the question itself, and being most largely
endowed with the holy bowels of Christian charity, thought that we ought to
remain at unity with those who differed in opinion from ourselves.
Therefore, although he was not without excitement, though of a truly
brotherly kind, in his indignation, yet the peace of Christ prevailed in
their hearts, that in such a dispute no evil of schism should arise between
them. But it was not found that "hence grew more abundant heresies and
schisms,"(4) because what is of Christ in them is approved, and what is of
themselves is condemned; for all the more those who hold this law of re-
baptizing were cut into smaller fragments.
CHAP. 26.--37. To go on to what he says, "that a bishop should be
'teachable,'"(5) adding, "But he is teachable who is gentle and meek to
learn; for a bishop ought not only to teach, but to learn as well, since he
is indeed the better teacher who daily grows and advances by learning
better things;"(6)--in these words assuredly the holy man, endowed with
pious charity, sufficiently points out that we should not hesitate to read
his letters in such a sense, that we should feel no difficulty if the
Church should afterwards confirm what had been discovered by further and
longer discussions; because, as there were many things which the learned
Cyprian might teach, so there was still something which the teachable
Cyprian might learn. But the admonition that he gives us, "that we should
go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn
the channel of truth to our times,"(6) is most excellent, and should be
followed without hesitation. It is handed down to us, therefore, as he
himself records, by the apostles, that there is "one God, and one Christ,
and one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism."(7) Since
then we find that in the times of the apostles themselves there were some
who had not the one hope, but had the one baptism, the truth is so brought
down to us from the fountain itself, that it is clear to us that it is
possible that though there is one Church, as there is one hope, and one
baptism, they may yet have the one baptism who have not the one Church;
just as even in those early times it was possible that men should have the
one baptism who had not the one hope. For how had they one hope with the
holy and the just, who used to say, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we
die,"(8) asserting that there was no resurrection of the dead? And yet they
were among the very men to whom the same apostle says, "Was Paul crucified
for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"(9) For he writes most
manifestly to them, saying, "How say some among you that there is no
resurrection of the dead?"(10)
CHAP. 27.--38. And in that the Church is thus described in the Song of
Songs, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a
fountain sealed, a well of living water; thy plants are an orchard of
pomegranates, with pleasant fruits;"(11) I dare not understand this save of
the holy and just,--not of the covetous, and defrauders, and robbers, and
usurers, and drunkards, and the envious, of whom we yet both learn most
fully from Cyprian's letters, as I have often shown, and teach ourselves,
that they had baptism in common with the just, in common with whom they
certainly had not Christian charity. For I would that some one would tell
me how they "crept into the garden enclosed and the fountain sealed," of
whom Cyprian bears witness that they renounced the world in word and not in
deed, and that yet they were within the Church. For if they both are
themselves there, and are themselves the bride of Christ, can she then be
as she is described "without spot or wrinkle,"(1) and is the fair dove
defiled with such a portion of her members? Are these the thorns among
which she is a lily, as it is said in the same Song?(2) So far therefore,
as the lily extends, so far does "the garden enclosed and the fountain
sealed," namely, through all those just persons who are Jews inwardly in
the circumcision of the heart(3) (for" the king's daughter is all glorious
within"(4)), in whom is the fixed number of the saints predestined before
the foundation of the world. But that multitude of thorns, whether in
secret or in open separation, is pressing on it from without, above number.
"If I would declare them," it is said, "and speak of them, they are more
than can be numbered."(5) The number, therefore, of the just persons, "who
are the called according to His purpose,"(6) of whom it is said, "The Lord
knoweth them that are His,"(7) is itself "the garden enclosed, the fountain
sealed, a well of living water, the orchard of pomegranates with pleasant
fruits." Of this number some live according to the Spirit, and enter on the
excellent way of charity; and when they "restore a man that is overtaken in
a fault in the spirit of meekness, they consider themselves, lest they also
be tempted."(8) And when it happens that they also are themselves
overtaken, the affection of charity is but a little checked, and not
extinguished; and again rising up and being kindled afresh, it is restored
to its former course. For they know how to say, "My soul melteth for
heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto Thy word."(9) But when "in
anything they be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto
them,"(10) if they abide in the burning flame of charity, and do not break
the bond of peace. But some who are yet carnal, and full of fleshly
appetites, are instant in working out their progress; and that they may
become fit for heavenly food, they are nourished with the milk of the holy
mysteries, they avoid in the fear of God whatever is manifestly corrupt
even in the opinion of the world, and they strive most watchfully that they
may be less and less delighted with worldly and temporal matters. They
observe most constantly the rule of faith which has been sought out with
diligence; and if in aught they stray from it, they submit to speedy
correction under Catholic authority, although, in Cyprian's words, they be
tossed about, by reason of their fleshly appetite, with the various
conflicts of phantasies. There are some also who as yet live wickedly, or
even lie in heresies or the superstitions of the Gentiles, and yet even
then "the Lord knoweth them that are His." For, in that unspeakable
foreknowledge of God, many who seem to be without are in reality within,
and many who seem to be within yet really are without. Of all those,
therefore, who, if I may so say, are inwardly and secretly within, is that
"enclosed garden" composed, "the fountain sealed, a well of living water,
the orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits." The divinely imparted
gifts of these are partly peculiar to themselves, as in this world the
charity that never faileth, and in the world to come eternal life; partly
they are common with evil and perverse men, as all the other things in
which consist the holy mysteries.
CHAP. 28.--39. Hence, therefore, we have now set before us an easier
and more simple consideration of that ark of which Noah was the builder and
pilot. For Peter says that in the ark of Noah, "few, that is, eight souls,
were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now
save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of
a good conscience towards God)."(11) Wherefore, if those appear to men to
be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not
in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is
not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who,
making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet
persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of
life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself
records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the
baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark
saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian
himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to
sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity
admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale."(12) If not by
water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the
Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is
therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be
considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized
within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto
salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark
except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within
may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to
have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die
by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark.
Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation
to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not
that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity
of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart
without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of
unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those
who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without
the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good
Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish. But what the
most blessed Cyprian thinks of the Catholic Church, and how the heretics
are utterly crushed by his authority; notwithstanding the much I have
already said, I have yet determined to set forth by itself, if God will,
with somewhat greater fullness and perspicuity, so soon as I shall have
first said about his Council what I think is due from me, which, in God's
will, shall attempt in the following book.
BOOK VI.
IN WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE COUNCIL, OF CARTHAGE, HELD UNDER THE AUTHORITY
AND PRESIDENCY OF CYPRIAN, TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF THE BAPTISM OF
HERETICS.
CHAP. 1.--1. It might perhaps have been sufficient, that after the
reasons have been so often repeated, and considered, and discussed with
such variety of treatment, supplemented too, with the addition of proofs
from holy Scripture, and the concurrent testimony of so many passages from
Cyprian himself, even those who are slow of heart should thus understand,
as I believe they do, that the baptism of Christ cannot be rendered void by
any perversity on the part of man, whether in administering or receiving
it. And when we find that in those times, when the point in question was
decided in a manner contrary to ancient custom, after discussions carried
on without violation of saving charity and unity, it appeared to some even
eminent men who were bishops of Christ, among whom the blessed Cyprian was
specially conspicuous, that the baptism of Christ could not exist among
heretics or schismatics, this simply arose from their not distinguishing
the sacrament from the effect or use of the sacrament; and because its
effect and use were not found among heretics in freeing them from their
sins and setting their hearts right, the sacrament itself was also thought
to be wanting among them. But if we turn our eyes to the multitude of chaff
within the Church, since these also who are perverse and lead an abandoned
life in unity itself appear to have no power either of giving or retaining
remission of sins, seeing that it is not to the wicked but the good sons
that it was said, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,"(1) yet that such
persons both have, and give, and receive the sacrament of baptism, was
sufficiently manifest to the pastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over
the whole world, through whom the original custom was afterwards confirmed
by the authority of a plenary Council; so that even the sheep which was
straying outside, and had received the mark of the Lord from false
plunderers outside, if it seek the salvation of Christian unity, is
purified from error, is freed from captivity, is healed of its wound, and
yet the mark of the Lord is recognized rather than rejected in it; since
the mark itself is often impressed both by wolves and on wolves, who seem
indeed to be within the fold, but yet are proved by the fruits of their
conduct, in which they persevere even to the end, not to belong to that
sheep which is one in many; because, according to the foreknowledge of God,
as many sheep wander outside, so many wolves lurk treacherously within,
among whom the Lord yet knoweth them that are His, which hear only the
voice of the Shepherd, even when He calls by the voice of men like the
Pharisees, of whom it was said, "Whatsoever they bid you observe that
observe and do."(2)
2. For as the spiritual man, keeping "the end of the commandment," that
is, "charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned,"(3) can see some things less clearly out of a body which is yet
"corruptible and presseth down the soul,"(4) and is liable to be otherwise
minded in some things which God will reveal(5) to him in His own good time
if he abide in the same charity, so in a carnal and perverse man something
good. and useful may be found, which has its origin not in the man himself,
but in some other source. For as in the fruitful branch there is found
something which must be purged that it may bring forth more fruit, so also
a grape is often found to hang on a cane that is barren and dry or
fettered. And so, as it is foolish to love the portions which require
purging in the fruitful branch, while he acts wisely who does not reject
the sweet fruit wherever it may hang, so, if any one cuts himself off from
unity by rebaptizing, simply because it seemed to Cyprian that one ought to
baptize again those who came from the heretics, such a mar turns aside from
what merits praise in that great man, and follows what requires correction,
and does not even attain to the very thing he follows after. For Cyprian,
while grievously abhorring, in his zeal for God, all those who severed
themselves from unity, thought that thereby they were separated from
baptism itself; while these men, thinking it at most a slight offense that
they themselves are severed from the unity of Christ, even maintain that
His baptism is not in that unity, but issued forth with them. Therefore
they are so far from the fruitfulness of Cyprian, as not even to be equal
to the parts in him which needed purging.
CHAP. 2.--3. Again, if any one not having charity, and walking in the
abandoned paths of a most wicked life, seems to be within while he really
is without, and at the same time does not seek for the repetition of
baptism even in the case of heretics, it in no wise helps his barrenness,
because he is not rendered fruitful with his own fruit, but laden with that
of others. But it is possible that some one may flourish in the root of
charity, and may be most rightly minded in the point in which Cyprian was
otherwise minded, and yet there may be more that is fruitful in Cyprian
than in him more that requires purging in him than in Cyprian. Not only,
therefore, do we not compare bad Catholics with the blessed Cyprian, but
even good Catholics we do not hastily pronounce to be on an equality with
him whom our pious mother Church counts among the few rare men of
surpassing excellence and grace, although these others may recognize the
baptism of Christ even among heretics, while he thought otherwise; so that,
by the instance of Cyprian, who saw one point less clearly, and yet
remained most firm in the unity of the Church, it might be shown more
clearly to heretics what a sacrilegious crime it was to break the bond of
peace. For neither were the blind Pharisees, although they sometimes
enjoined what was right to be done, to be compared to the Apostle Peter,
though he at times enjoined what was not right. But not only is their
dryness not to be compared to his greenness, but even the fruit of others
may not be deemed equal to his fertility. For no one now compels the
Gentiles to judaize, and yet no one now in the Church, however great his
progress in goodness, may be compared with the apostle ship of Peter.
Wherefore, while rendering due reverence, and paying, so far as I can, I
the fitting honor to the peaceful bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian, I yet
venture to say that his view concerning the baptism of schismatics and
heretics was contrary to that which was afterwards brought to light by a
decision, not of mine, but of the whole Church, confirmed and strengthened
by the authority of a plenary Council: just as, while paying the reverence
he deserves to Peter, the first of the apostles and most eminent of
martyrs, I yet venture to say that he did not do right in compelling the
Gentiles to judaize; for this also, I say, not of my own teaching, but
according to the wholesome doctrine of the Apostle Paul, retained and
preserved through out the whole Church.(1)
4. Therefore, in discussing the opinion of Cyprian, though myself of
far inferior merit to Cyprian, I say that good and bad alike can have, can
give, can receive the sacrament of baptism,--the good, indeed, to their
health and profit; the bad to their destruction and ruin,--while the
sacrament itself is of equal perfectness in both of them; and that it is of
no consequence to its equal perfectness in all, how much worse the man may
be that has it among the bad, just as it makes no difference how much
better he may be that has it among the good. And accordingly it makes no
difference either how much worse he may be that confers it, as it makes no
difference how much better he may be; and so it makes no difference how
much worse he may be that receives it, as it makes no difference how much
better be may be. For the sacrament is equally holy, in virtue of its own
excellence, both in those who are unequally just, and in those who are
unequally unjust.
CHAP. 3.--5. But I think that we have sufficiently shown, both from the
canon of Scripture, and from the letters of Cyprian himself, that bad men,
while by no means converted to a better mind, can have, and confer, and
receive baptism, of whom it is most clear that they do not belong to the
holy Church of God, though they seem to be within it, inasmuch as they are
covetous, robbers, usurers, envious, evil thinkers, and the like; while she
is one dove,(2) modest and chaste, a bride without spot or wrinkle,(3) a
garden enclosed, a fountain sealed, an orchard of pomegranates with
pleasant fruits,(4) with all similar properties which are attributed to
her; and all this can only be understood to be in the good, and holy, and
just,--following, that is, not only the operations of the gifts of God,
which are common to good and bad alike, but also the inner bond of charity
conspicuous in those who have the Holy Spirit, to whom the Lord says,
"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever
sins ye retain, they are retained."(1)
CHAP. 4.--6. And so it is clear that no good ground is shown herein why
the bad man, who has baptism, may not also confer it; and as he has it to
destruction, so he may also confer it to destruction,--not because this is
the character of the thing conferred, nor of the person conferring, but
because it is the character of him on whom it is conferred. For when a bad
man confers it on a good man, that is, on one in the bond of unity,
converted with a true conversion, the wickedness of him who confers it
makes no severance between the good sacrament which is conferred, and the
good member of the Church on whom it is conferred. And when his sins are
forgiven him on his true conversion to God, they are forgiven by those to
whom he is united by his true conversion. For the same Spirit forgives
them, which is given to all the saints that cling to one another in love,
whether they know one another in the body or not. Similarly when a man's
sins are retained, they are assuredly retained by those from whom he, in
whom they are retained, separates himself by dissimilarity of life, and by
the turning away of a corrupt heart, whether they know him in the body or
not.
CHAP. 5.--7. Wherefore all bad men are separated in the spirit from the
good; but if they are separated in the body also by a manifest dissension,
they are made yet, worse. But, as it has been said, it makes no difference
to the holiness of baptism how much worse the man may be that has it, or
how much worse he that confers it: yet he that is separated may confer it,
as he that is separated may have it; but as he has it to destruction, so he
may confer it to destruction. But he on whom he confers it may receive it
to his soul's health, if he, on his part, receive it not in separation; as
it has happened to many that, in a catholic spirit, and with heart not
alienated from the unity of peace, they have, under some pressure of
impending death, turned hastily to some heretic and received from him the
baptism of Christ without any share in his perversity, so that, whether
dying or restored to life, they by no means remain in communion with those
to whom they never passed in heart. But if the recipient himself has
received the baptism in separation, he receives it so much the more to his
destruction, in proportion to the greatness of the good which he has not
received well; and it tends the more to his destruction in his separation,
as it would avail the more to the salvation of one in unity. And so, if,
reforming himself from his perverseness and turning from his separation, he
should come to the Catholic peace, his sins are remitted through the bond
of peace and the same baptism under which his sins were retained through
the sacrilege of separation, because that is always holy both in the just
and the unjust, which is neither increased by the righteousness nor
diminished by the unrighteousness of any man.
8. This being the case, what bearing has it on so clear a truth, that
many of his fellow-bishops agreed with Cyprian in that opinion, and
advanced their own several opinions on the same side, except that his
charity towards the unity of Christ might become more and more conspicuous?
For if he had been the only one to hold that opinion, with no one to agree
with him, he might have been thought, in remaining, to have shrunk from the
sin of schism, because he found no companions in his error; but when so
many agreed with him, he showed, by remaining in unity with the rest who
thought differently from him, that he preserved the most sacred bond of
universal catholicity, not from any fear of isolation, but from the love of
peace. Wherefore it might indeed seem now to be superfluous to consider the
several opinions of the other bishops also in that Council; but since those
who are slow in heart think that no answer has been made at all, if to any
passage in any discourse the answer which, might be brought to bear on the
spot be given not there but somewhere else, it is better that by reading
much they should be polished into sharpness, than that by understanding
little they should have room left for complaining that the argument has not
been fairly conducted.
CHAP. 6.--9. First, then, let us record for further consideration the
case proposed for decision by Cyprian himself, with which he initiates the
proceedings of the Council, and by which he shows a peaceful spirit,
abounding in the fruitfulness of Christian charity. "Ye have head," he
says, "most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop, has
written to me, consulting my poor ability about the unlawful and profane
baptism of heretics, and what I have written back to him, expressing to him
the same opinion that I have expressed once and again and often, that
heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized, and sanctified with the
baptism of the Church. Another letter also of Jubaianus has been read to
you, in which, agreeably to his sincere and religious devotion, in answer
to our epistle, he not only expressed his assent to it, but also gratefully
acknowledged that he had received instruction. It remains that we should
individually express our opinions on this same subject, judging no one, and
removing no one from the right of communion if he should entertain a
different opinion. For neither does any one of us set himself up as a
bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror force his colleagues to the
necessity of obeying, since every bishop, in the free use of his liberty
and power, has the right of free judgment, and can no more be judged by
another than he can himself judge another. But we are all awaiting the
judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who alone has the power Both of
preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our
actions."(1)
CHAP. 7.--10. I have already, I think, argued to the best of my power,
in the preceding books, in the interests of Catholic unanimity and counsel,
in whose unity these continued as pious members, in reply not only to the
letter which Cyprian wrote to Jubaianus, but also to that which he sent to
Quintus, and that which, in conjunction with certain of his colleagues, he
sent to certain other colleagues, and that which he sent to Pompeius.
Wherefore it seems now to be fitting to consider also what the others
severally thought, and that with the liberty of which he himself would not
deprive us, as he says, "Judging no one, nor removing any from the right of
communion if he entertain different opinions." And that he did not say this
with the object of arriving at the hidden thoughts of his colleagues,
extracted as it were from their secret lurking-places, but because he
really loved peace and unity, is very easily to be seen from other passages
of the same sort, where he wrote to individuals as to Jubaianus himself.
"These things," he says, "we have written very shortly in answer to you,
most beloved brother, according to our poor ability, not preventing any one
of the bishops by our writing or judgment, from acting as he thinks right,
having a free exercise of his own judgment."(2) And that it might not seem
that any one, because of his entertaining different opinions in this same
free exercise of his judgment, should be driven from the society of his
brethren, he goes on to say, "We, so far as lies in us, do not strive on
behalf of heretics against our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with whom we
maintain godly unity and the peace of our Lord;"(2) and a little later he
says, "Charity of spirit, respect for our fraternity, the bond of faith,
the harmony of the priesthood, are by us maintained with patience and
gentleness."(2) And so also in the epistle which he wrote to Magnus, when
he was asked whether there was any difference in the efficacy of baptism by
sprinkling "or by immersion, "In this matter," he says, "I am too modest
and diffident to prevent any one by my judgment from thinking as he deems
right, and acting as he thinks."(3) By which discourses he clearly shows
that these subjects were being handled by them at a time when they were not
yet received as decided beyond all question, but were being investigated
with great care as being yet unrevealed. We, therefore, maintaining on the
subject of the identity of all baptisms what must be acknowledged
everywhere to be the custom(4) of the universal Church, and what is
confirmed by the decision of general Councils,(5) and taking greater
confidence also from the words of Cyprian, which allowed me even then to
hold opinions differing from his own without forfeiting the right of
communion, seeing that greater importance and praise were attached to
unity, such as the blessed Cyprian and his colleagues, with whom he held
that Council, maintained with those of different opinions, disturbing and
overthrowing thereby the seditious calumnies of heretics and schismatics in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, speaking by His apostle, says,
"Forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace;"(6) and again, by the mouth of the same
apostle, "If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this
unto you,"(7)--we, I say, propose for consideration and discussion the
opinions of the holy bishops, without violating the bond of unity and peace
with them, in maintaining which we imitate them so far as we can by the aid
of the Lord Himself.
CHAP. VIII.--11. Caecilius of Bilta(1) said: "I know of one baptism in
the one Church and of none outside the Church. The one will be where there
is true hope and sure faith. For so it is written, 'One faith, One hope,
one baptism.'(2) Not among heretics, where there is no hope and a false
faith; where all things are done by a lie; where one possessed of a devil
exorcises; the question of the sacrament is asked by one from whose mouth
and words proceeds a cancer; the faithless gives faith; the guilty gives
pardon for sins and Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ one accursed
of God blesses; the dead promises life; the unpeaceful gives peace; the
blasphemer calls on God; the profane administers the priesthood; the
sacrilegious sets up the altar. To all this is added this further evil that
the servant of the devil dares to celebrate the eucharist. If this be not
so, let those who stand by them prove that all of it is false concerning
heretics. See the kind of things to which the Church is compelled to
assent, being forced to communicate without baptism or the remission of
sins. This, brethren, we ought to shun and avoid, separating ourselves from
so great a sin, and holding to the one baptism which is granted to the
Church alone."(3)
12. To this I answer, that all who even within the Church profess that
they know God, but deny Him in their deeds, such as are the covetous and
envious, and those who, because they hate their brethren, are pronounced to
be murderers, not on my testimony, but on that of the holy Apostle John,(4)
--all these are both devoid of hope, because they have a bad conscience;
and are faithless, because they do not do what they have vowed to God; and
liars, because they make false professions; and possessed of devils,
because they give place in their heart to the devil and his angels; and
their words work corruption, since they corrupt good manners by evil
communications; and they are infidels, because they laugh at the threats
which God utters against such men; and accursed, because they live
wickedly; and antichrists, because their lives are opposed to Christ; and
cursed of God, since holy Scripture everywhere calls down curses on such
men; and dead, because they are without the life of righteousness; and
unpeaceful, because by their contrary deeds they are at variance with God's
behests; and blasphemous, because by their abandoned acts despite is done
to the name of Christian; and profane, because they are spiritually shut
out from that inner sanctuary of God; and sacrilegious, because by their
evil life they defile the temple of God within themselves; and servants of
the devil, because they do service to fraud and covetousness, which is
idolatry. That of such a kind are some, nay very many, even within the
Church, is testified both by Paul the apostle and by Cyprian the bishop.
Why, then, do they baptize? Why also are some, who "renounce the world in
words and not in deeds," baptized without being converted from a life like
this, and not rebaptized when they are converted? And as to what he says
with such indignation, "See the kind of things to which the Church is
compelled to assent, being forced to communicate without baptism or the
remission of sins," he could never have used such expressions had there not
been the other bishops who elsewhere forced men to such things. Whence also
it is shown that at that time those men held the truer views who did not
depart from the primitive custom, which is since confirmed by the consent
of a general Council.(5) But what does he mean by adding, "This, brethren,
we ought to shun and avoid, separating ourselves from so great a sin?" For
if he means that he is not to do nor to approve of this, that is another
matter; but if he means to condemn and sever from him those that hold the
contrary opinion, he is setting himself against the earlier words of
Cyprian, "Judging no man, nor depriving any of the right of communion if he
differ from us."
CHAP. 9.--13. The elder Felix(6) of Migirpa said: "I think that every
one coming from heresy should be baptized. For in vain does any one suppose
that he has been baptized there, seeing that there is no baptism save the
one true baptism in the Church; for there is one Lord, and one faith, and
one Church, in which rests the one baptism, and holiness, and the rest. For
the things that are practised without have no power to work salvation."
14. To what Felix of Migirpa said we answer as follows. If the one true
baptism did not exist except in the Church, it surely would not exist in
those who depart from unity. But it does exist in them, since they do not
receive it when they return, simply because they had not lost it when they
departed. But as regards his statement, that "the things that are practised
without have no power to work salvation," I agree with him, and think that
it is quite true; for it is one thing that baptism should not be there, and
another that it should have no power to work salvation. For when men come
to the peace of the Catholic Church, then what was in them before they
joined it, but did not profit them, begins at once to profit them.
CHAP. 10.--15. To the declaration of Polycarp of Adrumetum,(1) that
"those who declare the baptism of heretics to be valid, make ours of none
effect," we answer, if that is the baptism of heretics which is given by
heretics. then that is the baptism of the covetous and murderers which is
given by them within the Church. But if this be not their baptism, neither
is the other the baptism of heretics; and so it is Christ's, by whomsoever
it be given.
CHAP. 11.--16. Novatus of Thamugadis(2) said: "Though we know that all
Scripture gives its testimony respecting saving baptism, yet we ought to
express our belief that heretics and schismatics, coming to the Church with
the semblance of having been baptized, ought to be baptized in the
unfailing fountain; and that therefore, according to the testimony of the
Scriptures, and according to the decree of those most holy men, our
colleagues,(3) all schismatics and heretics who are converted to the Church
ought to be baptized; and that, moreover, all that seemed to have received
ordination should be admitted as simple laymen."
17. Novatus of Thamugadis has stated what he has done, but he has
brought forward no proofs by which to show that he ought to have acted as
he did. For he has made mention of the testimony of the Scriptures, and the
decree of his colleagues, but he has not adduced out of them anything which
we could consider.
CHAP. 12.--18. Nemesianus of Tubunae(4) said: "That the baptism which
is given by heretics and schismatics is not true is everywhere declared in
the holy Scriptures, inasmuch as their very prelates are false Christs and
false prophets, as the Lord declares by the mouth of Solomon, 'Whoso
trusteth in lies, the same feedeth the winds; he also followeth flying
birds. For he deserteth the ways of his own vineyard, and hath strayed from
the paths of his own field. For he walketh through pathless and dry places,
and a land destined to thirst; and he gathereth fruitless weeds in his
hands.'(5) And again, 'Abstain from strange water, and drink not of a
strange fountain, that thou mayest live long, and that years may be added
to thy life.(6) And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spake with His own
voice, saying, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.'(7) This is the Spirit which from the
beginning 'moved upon the face of the waters.'(8) For neither can the
Spirit act without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. III,
therefore, for themselves do some interpret, saying that by imposition of
hands they receive the Holy Ghost, and are received into the Church, when
it is manifest that they ought to be born again by both sacraments in the
Catholic Church. For then indeed will they be able to become the sons of
God, as the apostle says, 'Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called
in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.'(9)
All this the Catholic Church asserts. And again he says in the gospel,
'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit; for the Spirit is God, and is born of God.'(10) Therefore
all things whatsoever all heretics and schismatics do are carnal, as the
apostle says, 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these:
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, wrath, seditions, heresies, and such like: of the
which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they
which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.'(1) The apostle
condemns, equally with all the wicked, those also who cause divisions, that
is, schismatics and heretics. Unless therefore they receive that saving
baptism which is one, and found only in the Catholic Church, they cannot be
saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord."
19. Nemesianus of Tubunae has advanced many passages of Scripture to
prove his point; but he has in fact said much on behalf of the view of the
Catholic Church, which we have undertaken to set forth and maintain.
Unless, indeed, we must suppose that he does not "trust in what is false"
who trusts in the hope of things temporal, as do all covetous men and
robbers, and those "who renounce the world in words but not in deeds," of
whom Cyprian yet bears witness that such men not only baptize, but even are
baptized within the Church.(2) For they themselves also "follow flying
birds,"(3) since they do not attain to what they desire. But not only the
heretic, but everyone who leads an evil life "deserteth the ways of his own
vineyard, and hath strayed from the paths of his own field. And he walketh
through pathless and dry places, and a land destined to thirst; and he
gathereth fruitless weeds in his hands;" because all justice is fruitful,
and all iniquity is barren. Those, again, who "drink strange water out of a
strange fountain," are found not only among heretics, but among all who do
not live according to the teaching of God, and do live according to the
teaching of the devil. For if he were speaking of baptism, he would not
say, "Do not drink of a strange fountain," but, do not wash thyself in a
strange fountain. Again, I do not see at all what aid he gets towards
proving his point from the words of our Lord, "Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."(4) For
it is one thing to say that every one who shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven is first born again of water and the Spirit, because except a man be
born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven, which is the Lord's saying, and is true; another thing to say that
every one who is born of water and the Spirit shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven, which is assuredly false. For Simon Magus also was born of water
and of the Spirit,(5) and yet he did not enter into the kingdom of heaven;
and this may possibly be the case with heretics as well. Or if only those
are born of the Spirit who are changed with a true conversion, all "who
renounce the world in word and not in deed" are assuredly not born of the
Spirit, but of water only, and yet they are within the Church, according to
the testimony of Cyprian. For we must perforce grant one of two things,--
either those who renounce the world deceitfully are born of the Spirit,
though it is to their destruction, not to salvation, and therefore heretics
may be so born; or if what is written, that "the Holy Spirit of discipline
will flee deceit,"(6) extends to proving as much as this, that those who
renounce the world deceitfully are not born of the Spirit, then a man may
be baptized with water, and not born of the Spirit, and Nemesianus says in
vain that neither the Spirit can work without the water, nor the water
without the Spirit. Indeed it has been already often shown how it is
possible that men should have one baptism in common who have not one
Church, as it is possible that in the body of the Church herself those who
are sanctified by their righteousness, and those who are polluted through
their covetousness, may not have the same one Spirit, and yet have the same
one baptism. For it is said "one body," that is, the Church, just as it is
said "one Spirit" and "one baptism." The other arguments which he has
adduced rather favor our position. For he has brought forward a proof from
the gospel, in the words, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; for the Spirit is God, and born
of God;"(7) and he has advanced the argument that therefore all things that
are done by any heretic or schismatic are carnal, as the apostle says, "The
works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication,
uncleanness;" and so he goes through the list which the apostle there
enumerates, amongst which he has reckoned heresies, since "they who do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."(8) Then he goes on to add,
that "therefore the apostle condemns with all wicked men those also who
cause division, that is, schismatics and heretics." And in this he does
well, that when he enumerates the works of the flesh, among which are also
heresies, he found and declared that the apostle condemns them all alike.
Let him therefore question the holy Cyprian himself, and learn from him how
many even within the Church live according to the evil works of the flesh,
which the apostle condemns in common with the heresies, and yet these both
baptize and are baptized. Why then are heretics alone said to be incapable
of possessing baptism, which is possessed by the very partners in their
condemnation?
CHAP. 13.--20. Januarius of Lambaese(1) said: "Following the authority
of the holy Scriptures, I pronounce that all heretics should be baptized,
and so admitted into the holy Church."(2)
21. To him we answer, that, following the authority of the holy
Scriptures, a universal Council of the whole world decreed that the baptism
of Christ was not to be disavowed even when found among heretics. But if he
had brought forward any proof from the Scriptures, we should have shown
either that they were not against us, or even that they were for us, as we
proceed to do with him who follows.
CHAP. 14.--21. Lucius of Castra Galbae(3) said: "Since the Lord hath
said in His gospel, 'Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have
lost his savor, that which is salted from it shall be thenceforth good for
nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men;'(4) and
seeing that again, after His resurrection, when sending forth His apostles,
He commanded them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth: go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,'(5)--since then it is
plain that heretics, that is, the enemies of Christ, have not the full
confession of the sacrament, also that schismatics cannot reason with
spiritual wisdom, since they themselves, by withdrawing when they have lost
their savor from the Church, which is one, have become contrary to it,(6)
let that be done which is written, 'The houses of those that are opposed to
the law must needs be cleansed;'(7) and it therefore follows that those who
have been polluted by being baptized by men opposed to Christ should first
be cleansed, and only then baptized."(8)
23. Lucius of Castra Galbae has brought forward a proof from the
gospel, in the words of the Lord, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the
salt have lost his savor, that which is salted from it shall be good for
nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men;" just as
though we maintained that men when cast out were of any profit for the
salvation either of themselves or of any one else. But those also who,
though seeming to be within, are yet of such a kind, not only are without
spiritually, but will in the end be separated in the body also. For all
such are for nothing. But it does not therefore follow that the sacrament
of baptism which is in them is nothing. For even in the very men who are
cast out, if they return to their senses and come back, the salvation which
had departed from them returns; but the baptism does not return, because it
never had departed. And in what the Lord says, "Go therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost," He did not permit any to baptize except the good, inasmuch
as He did not say to the bad, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted
unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."(9) How then
do the wicked baptize within, who cannot remit sins? How also is it that
they baptize the wicked whose hearts are not changed, whose sins are yet
upon them, as John says, "He that hateth his brother is in darkness even
until now?"(10) But if the sins of these men are remitted when they join
themselves in the close bonds of love to the good and just, through whom
sins are remitted in the Church, though they have been baptized by the
wicked, so the sins of those also are remitted who come from without and
join themselves by the inner bond of peace to the same framework of the
body of Christ. Yet the baptism Of Christ should be acknowledged in both,
and held invalid in none, whether before they are converted, though then it
profit them nothing, or after they are converted, that so it may profit
them, as he says, "Since they themselves, by withdrawing when they have
lost their savor from the Church, which is one, have become contrary to it,
let that be done which is written, 'The houses of those that are opposed to
the law must need be cleansed.' And it therefore follows," he goes on to
say, "that those who have been polluted by being baptized by men opposed to
Christ should first be cleansed, and only then baptized." What then? Are
thieves and murderers not contrary to the law, which says, "Thou shalt not
kill; thou shalt not steal?"(1) "They must therefore needs be cleansed."
Who will deny it? And yet not only those who are baptized by such within
the Church, but also those who, being such themselves, are baptized without
being changed in heart, are nevertheless exempt from further baptism when
they are so changed. So great is the force of the sacrament of mere
baptism, that though we allow that a man who has been baptized and
continues to lead an evil life requires to be cleansed, we yet forbid him
to be any more baptized.
CHAP. 15.--24. Crescens of Cirta(2) said: "The letters of our most
beloved Cyprian to Jubaianus, and also to Stephen?(3) having been read in
so large an assembly of our most holy brethren in the priesthood,
containing as they do so large a body of sacred testimony derived from the
Scriptures that give us our God,(4) that we have every reason to assent to
them, being all united by the grace of God, I give my judgment that all
heretics or schismatics who wish to come to the Catholic Church should not
enter therein unless they have been first exorcised and baptized; with the
obvious exception of those who have been originally baptized in the
Catholic Church, these being reconciled and admitted to the penance of the
Church by the imposition of hands."(5)
25 Here we are warned once more to inquire why he says, "Except, of
course, those who have been originally baptized in the Catholic Church." Is
it because they had not lost what they had before received? Why then could
they not also transmit outside the Church what they were able to possess
outside? Is it that outside it is unlawfully transmitted? But neither is it
lawfully possessed outside, and yet it is possessed; so it is unlawfully
given outside, but yet it is given. But what is given to the person
returning from heresy who had been baptized inside, is given to the person
coming to the Church who had been baptized outside,--that is, that he may
have lawfully inside what before he had unlawfully outside. But perhaps
some one may ask what was said on this point in the letter of the blessed
Cyprian to Stephen, which is mentioned in this judgment, though not in the
opening address to the Council,--I suppose because it was not considered
necessary. For Crescens stated that the letter itself had been read in the
assembly, which I have no doubt was done, if I am not mistaken, as is
customary, in order that the bishops, being already assembled, might
receive some information at the same time on the subject contained in that
letter. For it certainly has no bearing on the present subject; and I am
more surprised at Crescens having thought fit to mention it at all, than at
its having been passed over in the opening address. But if any one thinks
that I have shrunk from bringing forward something which has been urged in
it that is essential to the present point, let him read it and see that
what I say is true; or if he finds it otherwise, let him convict me of
falsehood. For that letter Contains nothing whatsoever about baptism
administered among heretics or schismatics, which is the subject of our
present argument.(6)
CHAP. 16.--26. Nicomedes of Segermi(7) said: "My judgment is that
heretics coming to the Church should be baptized, because they can obtain
no remission of sins among sinners outside."(8)
27. The answer to which is: The judgment of the whole Catholic Church
is that heretics, being already baptized with the baptism of Christ,
although in heresy, should not be re-baptized on coming to the Church. For
if there is no remission of sins among sinners, neither can sinners within
the Church remit sins; and yet those who have been baptized by them are not
rebaptized.
CHAP. 17.--28. Monnulus of Girba(9) said: "The truth of our mother, the
Catholic Church, hath continued, and still continues among us, brethren,
especially in the threefold nature(10) of baptism, as our Lord says, 'Go,
baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.'(11) Since, therefore," he goes on to say, "we know clearly
that heretics have neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost, they ought, on
coming to our mother, the Church, to be truly regenerated and baptized,
that the cancer which they had, and the wrath of condemnation, and the
destructive energy of error(1) may be sanctified by the holy and heavenly
layer."(2)
29. To this we answer, That all who are baptized with the baptism that
is consecrated in the words of the gospel have the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Ghost in the sacrament alone; but that in heart and in life
neither do those have them who live an abandoned and accursed life within.
CHAP. 18.--30. Secundinus of Cedias(3) said: "Since our Lord Christ
said, 'He that is not with me is against me,'(4) and the Apostle John
declares those who go out from the Church to be antichrists,(5) without all
doubt the enemies of Christ, and those who are called antichrists, cannot
minister the grace of the baptism which gives salvation; and therefore my
judgment is that those who take refuge in the Church from the snares of
heresy should be baptized by us, who of His condescension are called the
friends of God."(6)
31. The answer to which is, That all are the opponents of Christ, to
whom, on their saying, "Lord, have we not in Thy name done many wonderful
things?" with all the rest that is there recorded, He shall at the last day
answer, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity,"(7)--all
which kind of chaff is destined for the fire, if it persevere to the last
in its wickedness, whether any part of it fly outside before its winnowing,
or whether it seem to be within. If, therefore, those heretics who come to
the Church are to be again baptized, that they may be baptized by the
friends of God, are those covetous men, those robbers, murderers, the
friends of God, or must those whom they have baptized be baptized afresh?
CHAP. 19.--32. Felix of Bagai(8) said: "As when the blind leads the
blind, both fall into the ditch,(9) so when a heretic baptizes a heretic,
both fall together into death."
33. This is true, but it does not follow that what he adds is true.
"And therefore," he says, "the heretic must be baptized and brought to
life, lest we who are alive should hold communion with the dead."(10) Were
they not dead who said, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die?"(11)
for they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Those then who
were corrupted by their evil communications, and followed them, were not
they likewise falling with them into the pit? And yet among them there were
men to whom the apostle was writing as being already baptized; nor would
they, therefore, if they were corrected, be baptized afresh. Does not the
same apostle say, "To be carnally-minded is death?"(12) and certainly the
covetous, the deceivers, the robbers, in the midst of whom Cyprian himself
was groaning, were carnally-minded. What then? Did the dead hurt him who
was living in unity? Or who would say, that because such men had or gave
the baptism of Christ, that it was therefore violated by their iniquities?
CHAP. 20.--34. Polianus of Mileum(13) said: "It is right that a heretic
should be baptized in the holy Church."(14)
35. Nothing, indeed, could be expressed more shortly. But I think this
too is short: It is right that the baptism of Christ should not be
depreciated in the Church of Christ.
CHAP. 21.--36. Theogenes of Hippo Regius(15) said: "According to the
sacrament of the heavenly grace of God which we have received, we believe
in the one only baptism which is in the holy Church."(16)
37. This may be my own judgment also. For it is so balanced, that it
contains nothing contrary to the truth. For we also believe in the one only
baptism which is in the holy Church. Had he said, indeed, We believe in
that which is in the holy Church alone, the same answer must have been made
to him as to the rest. But as it is, since he has expressed himself in this
wise, "We believe in the one only baptism which is in the holy Church," so
that it is asserted that it exists in the holy Church, but not denied that
it may be elsewhere as well, whatever his meaning may have been, there is
no need to argue against these words. For if I were questioned on the
several points, first, whether there was one baptism, I should answer that
there was one. Then if I were asked, whether this was in the holy Church, I
should answer that it was. In the third place, if it were asked whether I
believed in this baptism, I should answer that I did so believe; and
consequently I should answer that I believed in the one baptism which is in
the holy Church. But if it were asked whether it was found in the holy
Church alone, and not among heretics and schismatics, I should answer that,
in common with the whole Church, I believed the contrary. But since he did
not insert this in his judgment, I should consider that it was mere
wantonness if I added words which I did not find there, for the sake of
arguing against them. For if he were to say, There is one water of the
river Euphrates, which is in Paradise, no one could gainsay the truth of
what he said. But if he were asked whether that water were in Paradise and
nowhere else, and were to say that this was so, he would be saying what was
false. For, besides Paradise, it is also in those lands into which it flows
from that source. But who is rash enough to say that he would have been
likely to assert what is false, when it is quite possible that he was
asserting what is true? Wherefore the words of this judgment require no
contradiction, because they in no wise run counter to the truth.
CHAP. 22.--38. Dativus of Badiae(1) said "We, so far as lies within our
power, refuse to communicate with a heretic, unless he has been baptized in
the Church, and received remission of his sins."(2)
39. The answer to this is: If your reason for wishing him to be
baptized is that he has not received remission of sins, supposing you find
a man within the Church who has been baptized, though entertaining hatred
towards his brother, since the Lord cannot lie, who says, "If ye forgive
not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses,"(3) will you bid such an one, when corrected, to be baptized
afresh? Assuredly not; so neither should you bid the heretic. It is clear
that we must not pass unnoticed why he did not briefly say, "We do not
communicate with a heretic," but added, "so far as lies within our power."
For he saw that a greater number agreed with this view, from whose
communion, however, he and his friends could not separate themselves, lest
unity should be impaired, and so he added, "so far as lies within our
power,"--showing beyond all doubt that he did not willingly communicate
with those whom he held to be without baptism, but that yet all things were
to be endured for the sake of peace and unity; just as was done also by
those who thought that Dativus and his party were in the wrong, and who
held what afterwards was taught by a fuller declaration of the truth, and
urged by ancient custom, which received the stronger confirmation of a
later Council; yet in turn, with anxious piety, they showed toleration
towards each other, though without violation of Christian charity they
entertained different opinions, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace,(4) till God should reveal to one of them, were he
otherwise minded, even this error of his ways.(5) And to this I would have
those give heed, by whom unity is attacked on the authority of this very
Council by which it is declared how much unity should be loved.
CHAP. 23.--40. Successus of Abbir Germaniciana(6) said: "Heretics may
either do nothing or everything. If they can baptize, they can also give
the Holy Spirit; but if they cannot give the Holy Spirit, because they do
not possess the Holy Spirit, then can they not either spiritually baptize.
Therefore we give our judgment that heretics should be baptized."(7)
41. To this we may answer almost word for word: Murderers may either do
nothing or everything. If they can baptize, they can also give the Holy
Spirit; but if they cannot give the Holy Spirit, because they do not
possess the Holy Spirit, then can they not either spiritually baptize.
Therefore we give our judgment that persons baptized by murderers, or
murderers themselves who have been baptized without being converted,
should, when they have corrected themselves, be baptized. Yet this is not
true. For "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer;"(8) and Cyprian knew
such men within the Church, who certainly baptized. Therefore it is to no
purpose that words of this sort are used concerning heretics.
CHAP. 24.--42. Fortunatus of Thuccabori(9) said: "Jesus Christ our Lord
and God, the Son of God the Father and Creator, built His Church upon a
rock, not upon heresy, and gave the power of baptizing to bishops, not to
heretics. Wherefore those who are outside the Church, and stand against
Christ, scattering His sheep and flock, cannot baptize outside."(1)
43. He added the word "outside" in order that he might not be answered
with a like brevity to Successus. For otherwise he might also have been
answered word for word: Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the Son of God the
Father and Creator, built His Church upon a rock, not upon iniquity, and
gave the power of baptizing to bishops, not to the unrighteous. Wherefore
those who do not belong to the rock on which they build, who hear the word
of God and do it,(2) but, living contrary to Christ in hearing the word and
not doing it, and hereby building on the sand, in this way scatter His
sheep and flock by the example of an abandoned character, cannot baptize.
Might not this be said with all the semblance of truth? and yet it is
false. For the unrighteous do baptize, since those robbers are unrighteous
whom Cyprian maintained to be at unity with himself.(3) But for this
reason, says the Donatist, he adds "outside." Why therefore can they not
baptize outside? Is it because they are worse from the very fact that they
are outside? But it makes no difference, in respect of the Validity of
baptism, how much worse the minister may be. For there is not so much
difference between bad and worse as between good and bad; and yet, when the
bad baptizes, he gives the selfsame sacrament as the good. Therefore, also,
when the worse baptizes, he gives the selfsame sacrament as the less bad.
Or is it that it is not in respect of man's merit, but of the sacrament of
baptism itself, that it cannot be given outside? If this were so, neither
could it be possessed outside, and it would be necessary that a man should
be baptized again so often as he left the Church and again returned to it.
44. Further, if we inquire more carefully what is meant by "outside,"
especially as he himself makes mention of the rock on which the Church is
built, are not they in the Church who are on the rock, and they who are not
on the rock, not in the Church either Now, therefore, let us see whether
they build their house upon a rock who hear the words of Christ and do them
not. The Lord Himself declares the contrary, saying, "Whosoever heareth
these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man,
which built his house upon a rock;" and a little later, "Every one that
heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a
foolish man, which built his house upon the sand."(4) If, therefore, the
Church is on a rock, those who are on the sand, because they are outside
the rock, are necessarily outside the Church. Let us recollect, therefore,
how many Cyprian mentions as placed within who build upon the sand, that
is, who hear the words of Christ and do them not. And therefore, because
they are on the sand, they are proved to be outside the rock, that is,
outside the Church; yet even while they are so situated, and are either not
yet or never changed for the better, not only do they baptize and are
baptized, but the baptism which they have remains valid in them though they
are destined to damnation.
45. Neither can it be said in this place,(5) Yet who is there that
doeth all the words of the Lord which are written in the evangelic sermon
itself,(5) at the end of which He says, that he who heard the said words
and did them built upon a rock, and he who heard them and did them not
built upon the sand? For, granting that by certain persons all the words
are not accomplished, yet in the same sermon He has appointed the remedy,
saying, "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."(6) And after the Lord's prayer
had been recorded in detail in the same sermon, He says, "For I say unto
you, if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses."(7) Hence also Peter says, "For charity
shall cover the multitude of sins;"(8) which charity they certainly did not
have, and on this account they built upon the sand, of whom the same
Cyprian says, that within the Church they held conversation, even in the
time of the apostles, in unkindly hatred alien from Christian charity;(9)
and therefore they seemed indeed to be within, but really were without,
because they were not on that rock by which the Church is signified.
CHAP. 25.--46. Sedatus of Tuburbo(10) said: "Inasmuch as water,
sanctified by the prayer of the priest in the Church, washes away sins,
just so much does it multiply sins when infected, as by a cancer, with the
words of heretics. Wherefore one must strive, with all such efforts as
conduce to peace, that no one who has been infected and tainted by
heretical error should refuse to receive the one true baptism, with which
whosoever is not baptized shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven."(1)
47. To this we answer, that if the water is not sanctified, when
through want of skill the priest who prays utters some words of error,
many, not only of the bad, but of the good brethren in the Church itself,
fail to sanctify the water. For the prayers of many are corrected every day
on being recited to men of greater learning, and many things are found in
them contrary to the Catholic faith. Supposing, then, that it were shown
that some persons were baptized when these prayers had been uttered over
the water, will they be bidden to be baptized afresh? Why not? Because
generally the fault in the prayer is more than counterbalanced by the
intent of him who offers it; and those fixed words of the gospel, without
which baptism cannot be consecrated, are of such efficacy, that, by their
virtue, anything faulty that is uttered in the prayer contrary to the rule
of faith is made of no effect, just as the devil is excluded by the name of
Christ. For it is clear that if a heretic utters a faulty prayer, he has no
good intent of love whereby that want of skill may be compensated, and
therefore he is like any envious or spiteful person in the Catholic Church
itself, such as Cyprian proves to exist within the Church. Or one might
offer some prayer, as not unfrequently happens, in which he should speak
against the rule of faith, since many rush into the use of prayers which
are composed not only by unskillful men who love to talk, but even by
heretics, and in the simplicity of ignorance, not being able to discern
their true character, use them, thinking they are good; and yet what is
erroneous in them does not vitiate what is right, but rather it is rendered
null thereby, just as in the man of good hope and approved faith, who yet
is but a man, if in anything he be otherwise minded, what he holds aright
is not thereby vitiated until God reveal to him also that in which he is
otherwise minded.(2) But supposing that the man himself is wicked and
perverse, then, if he should offer an upright prayer, in no part contrary
to the Catholic faith, it does not follow that because the prayer is right
the man himself is also right; and if over some he offer an erroneous
prayer, God is present to uphold the words of His gospel, without which the
baptism of Christ cannot be consecrated, and He Himself consecrates His
sacrament, that in the recipient, either before he is baptized, or when he
is baptized, or at some future time when he turns in truth to God, that
very sacrament may be profitable to salvation, which, were he not to be
converted, would be powerful to his destruction. But who is there who does
not know that there is no baptism of Christ, if the words of the gospel in
which consists the outward visible sign be not forthcoming? But you will
more easily find heretics who do not baptize at all, than any who baptize
without those words. And therefore we say, not that every baptism (for in
many of the blasphemous rites of idols men are said to be baptized), but
that the baptism of Christ, that is, every baptism consecrated in the words
of the gospel, is everywhere the same, and cannot be vitiated by any
perversity on the part of any men.(3)
48. We must certainly not lightly pass over in this judgment that he
here inserted a clause, and says, "Wherefore we must strive, with all such
efforts as conduce to peace, that no one who has been infected," etc. For
he had regard to those words of the blessed Cyprian in his opening speech,
"Judging no man, nor depriving any of the right of communion if he
entertain a different view." See of what power is the love of unity and
peace in the good sons of the Church, that they should choose rather to
show tolerance towards those whom they called sacrilegious and profane,
being admitted, as they thought, without the sacrament of baptism, if they
could not correct them as they thought was right, than on their account to
break that holy bond, lest on account of the tares the wheat also should be
rooted out,(4)--permitting, so far as rested with them, as in that noblest
judgment of Solomon, that the infant body should rather be nourished by the
false mother than be cut in pieces.(5) But this was the opinion both of
those who held the truer view about the sacrament of baptism, and of those
to whom God, in consideration of their great love, was purposing to reveal
any point in which they were otherwise minded.
CHAP. 26.--49 Privatianus of Sufetula(6) said: "He who says that
heretics have the power of baptizing should first say who it was that
rounded heresy. For if heresy is of God, it may have the divine favor; but
if it be not of God, how can it either have or confer on any one the grace
of God?"(7)
50. This man may thus be answered word for word: He who says that
malicious and envious persons have the power of baptizing, should first say
who was the founder of malice and envy. For if malice and envy are of God,
they may have the divine favor; but if they are not of God, how can they
either have or confer on any one the grace of God? But as these words are
in the same way most manifestly false, so are also those which these were
uttered to confute. For the malicious and envious baptize, as even Cyprian
himself allows, because he bears testimony that they also are within. So
therefore even heretics may baptize, because baptism is the sacrament of
Christ; but envy and heresy are the works of the devil. Yet though a man
possesses them, he does not thereby cause that if he have the sacrament of
Christ, it also should itself be reckoned in the number of the devil's
works.
CHAP. 27.--51. Privatus of Sufes(1) said: "What can be said of the man
who approves the baptism of heretics, save that he communicates with
heretics?"(2)
52. To this we answer: It is not the baptism of heretics which we
approve in heretics, as it is not the baptism of the covetous, or the
treacherous, or deceitful, or of robbers, or of envious men which we
approve in them for all of these are unjust, but Christ is just, whose
sacrament existing in them, they do not in its essence violate. Otherwise
another man might say: What can be said of the man who approves the baptism
of the unjust, save that he communicates with the unjust. And if this
objection were brought against the Catholic Church herself, it would be
answered just as I have answered the above.
CHAP. 28.--53. Hortensianus of Lares(3) said: "How many baptisms there
are, let those who uphold or favor heretics determine. We assert one
baptism of the Church, which we only know in the Church. Or how can those
baptize any one in the name of Christ whom Christ Himself declares to be
His enemies?"(4)
54. Giving answer to this man in a like tenor of words, we say: Let
those who uphold or favor the unrighteous see to it: we recall to the
Church when we can the one baptism which we know to be of the Church alone,
wherever it be found. Or how can they baptize any one in the name of Christ
whom Christ Himself declares to be His enemies? For He says to all the
unrighteous, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity;"(5)
and yet, when they baptize, it is not themselves that baptize, but He of
whom John says, "The same is He which baptizeth."(6)
CHAP. 29.--55. Cassius of Macomades(7) said: "Since there cannot be two
baptisms, he who grants baptism unto heretics takes it away from himself. I
therefore declare my judgment that heretics, those objects for our tears,
those masses of corruption,(8) should be baptized when they begin to come
to the Church, and that so being washed by the sacred and divine laver, and
enlightened with the light of life, they may be received into the Church,--
as being now made not enemies, but peaceful; not strangers, but of the
household of the faith of the Lord; not bastards,(9) but sons of God;
partaking not of error, but of salvation,--with the exception of those who,
being believers transplanted from the Church, had gone over to heresy, and
that these should be restored by the laying on of hands."(10)
56. Another might say: Since there cannot be two baptisms, he who
grants baptism to the unrighteous takes it away from himself. But even our
opponents would join us in resisting such a man when he says that we grant
baptism to the unrighteous, which is not of the unrighteous, like their
unrighteousness, but of Christ, of whom is righteousness, and whose
sacrament, even among the unrighteous, is not unrighteous. What, therefore,
they would join us in saying of the unrighteous, that let them say to
themselves of heretics. And therefore he should rather have said as
follows: I therefore give my judgment that heretics, those objects for our
tears, those masses of corruption, should not be baptized when they begin
to come to the Church, if they already have the baptism of Christ, but
should be corrected from their error. For we may similarly say of the
unrighteous, of whom the heretics are a part: I therefore give my judgment
that the unrighteous, those objects for our tears, and masses of
corruption, if they have been already baptized, should not be baptized
again when they begin to come to the Church, that is, to that rock outside
which are all who hear the words of Christ and do them not; but being
already washed with the sacred and divine laver, and now further
enlightened with the light of truth, should be received into the Church no
longer as enemies but as peaceful, for the unrighteous have no peace; no
longer as strangers, but of the household of the faith of the Lord, for to
the unrighteous it is said, "How then art thou turned into the degenerate
plant of a strange vine unto me?"(1) no longer as bastards, but the sons of
God, for the unrighteous are the sons of the devil, partaking not of error
but of salvation, for un-righteousness cannot save. And by the Church I
mean that rock, that dove, that garden enclosed and fountain sealed, which
is recognized only in the wheat, not in the chaff, whether that be
scattered far apart by the wind, or appear to be mingled with the corn even
till the last winnowing. In vain, therefore, did Cassius add, "With the
exception of those who, being believers transplanted from the Church, had
gone over to heresy.' For if even they themselves had lost baptism by
seceding, to themselves also let t be restored; but if they had not lost
it, let what was given by them receive due recognition.
CHAP. 30.--57. Another Januarius of Vicus Caesaris(2) said: "If error
does not obey truth, much more does truth refuse assent to error; and
therefore we stand by the Church in which we preside, so that, claiming her
baptism for herself alone, we baptize those whom the Church has not
baptized."(3)
58. We answer: Whom the Church baptizes, those that rock baptizes
outside which are all they who hear the words of Christ and do them not.
Let all, therefore, be baptized again who have been baptized by such. But
if this is not done, then, as we recognize the baptism of Christ in these,
so should we recognize it in heretics, though we either condemn or correct
their unrighteousness and error.
CHAP. 31.--59. Another Secundinus of Carpis(4) said: "Are heretics
Christians or not? If they are Christians, why are they not in the Church
of God? If they are not Christians, let them be made so.(5) Else what will
be the reference in the discourse of the Lord, in which He says, 'He that
is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth
abroad?'(6) Whence it is clear that on strange children and the offspring
of Antichrist the Holy Spirit cannot descend by the laying on of hands
alone, since it is clear that heretics have not baptism."(7)
60. To this we answer: Are the unrighteous Christians or not? If they
are Christians, why are they not on that rock on which the Church is built?
for they hear the words of Christ and do them not. If they are not
Christians, let them be made so. Else what will be the reference in the
discourse of our Lord, in which He says, "He that is not with me is against
me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad?" For they scatter
His sheep who lead them to the ruin of their lives by a false imitation of
the Lord. Whence it is clear that upon strange children (as all the
unrighteous are called), and upon the offspring of Antichrist (which all
are who oppose themselves to Christ), the Holy Spirit cannot descend by the
laying on of hands alone, if there be not added a true conversion of the
heart; since it is clear that the unrighteous, so long as they are
unrighteous, may indeed have baptism, but cannot have the salvation of
which baptism is the sacrament. For let us see whether heretics are
described in that psalm where the following words are used of strange
children: "Deliver me, O Lord, from the hand of strange children, whose
mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood:
whose sons are like young shoots well established, and their daughters
polished after the similitude of the temple. Their garners are full,
affording all manner of store; their sheep are fruitful, bringing forth
plenteously in their streets; their oxen are strong: there is no breaking
down of their fence, no opening of a passage out, no complaining in their
streets. Men deemed happy the people that is in such a case; rather blessed
is the people whose God is the Lord."(8) If, therefore, those are strange
children who place their happiness in temporal things, and in the abundance
of earthly prosperity, and depsise the commandments of the Lord, let us see
whether these are not the very same of whom Cyprian so speaks, transforming
them also into himself, that he may show that he is speaking of men with
whom he held communion in the sacraments: "In not keeping," he says, "the
way of the Lord, nor observing the heavenly commandments given us for our
salvation. Our Lord did the will of His Father, and we do not do the will
of the Lord, being eager about our patrimony or our gains, following after
pride, and so forth."(1) But if these could both have and transmit baptism,
why is it denied that it may exist among strange children, whom he yet
exhorts, that, by keeping the heavenly commandments conveyed to them
through the only-begotten Son, they should deserve to be His brethren and
the sons of God?
CHAP. 32.--61. Victoricus of Thabraca(2) said: "If heretics may
baptize, and give remission of sins, why do we destroy their credit, and
call them heretics?"(3)
62. What if another were to say: If the unrighteous may baptize, and
give remission of sins, why do we destroy their credit, and call them
unrighteous? The answer which we should give to such an one concerning the
unrighteous may also be given to the other concerning heretics,--that is,
in the first place, that the baptism with which they baptize is not theirs;
and secondly, that it does not follow that whosoever has the baptism of
Christ is also certain of the remission of his sins if he has this only in
the outward sign, and is not converted with a true conversion of the heart,
so that he who gives remission should himself have remission of his sins.
CHAP. 33.--63. Another Felix of Uthina(4) said: "No one can doubt, most
holy brethren in the priesthood, that human presumption has not so much
power as the adorable and venerable majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Remembering then the danger, we ought not only to observe this ourselves,
but to confirm it by our general consent, that all heretics who come to the
bosom of our mother the Church be baptized, that the heretical mind, which
has been polluted by long-continued corruption, may be reformed when
cleansed by the sanctification of the layer."(5)
64. Perhaps the man who has placed the strength of his case for the
baptizing of heretics in the cleansing away of the long-continued
corruption, would spare those who, having fallen headlong into some heresy,
had remained in it a brief space, and presently being corrected, had passed
from thence to the Catholic Church. Furthermore, he has himself failed to
observe that it might be said that all unrighteous persons who come to that
rock, in which is understood the Church, should be baptized, so that the
unrighteous mind, which was building outside the rock upon the sand by
hearing the words of Christ and not doing them, might be reformed when
cleansed by the sanctification of the layer; and yet this is not done if
they have been baptized already, even if it be proved that such was their
character when they were baptized, that is, that they "renounced the world
in words and not in deeds."
CHAP. 34.--65. Quietus of Burug(6) said: "We who live by faith ought
with believing observance to obey what has been before foretold for our
instruction. For it is written in Solomon, 'He that is washed by one dead,
what availeth his washing?'(7) Which assuredly he says of those who are
washed by heretics, and of those who wash. For if they who are baptized
among them receive eternal life through the remission of their sins, why do
they come to the Church? But if no salvation is received from a dead
person, and they therefore, acknowledging their former error, return with
penance to the truth, they ought to be sanctified with the one life-giving
baptism which is in the Catholic Church."(8)
66. What it is to be baptized by the dead, we have already, without
prejudice to the more careful consideration of the same scripture,
sufficiently declared before.(9) But I would ask why it is that they wish
heretics alone to be considered dead, when Paul the apostle has said
generally of sin, "The wages of sin is death;"(10) and again, "To be
carnally minded is death."(11) And when he says that a widow that liveth in
pleasure is dead,(12) how are they not dead "who renounce the world in
words and not in deeds"? What, therefore, is the profit of washing in him
who is baptized by them, except, indeed, that if he himself also is of the
same character, he has the layer indeed, but it does not profit him to
salvation? But if he by whom he is baptized is such, but the man who is
baptized is turned to the Lord with no false heart, he is not baptized by
that dead person, but by that living One of whom it is said, "The same is
He which baptizeth."(1) But to what he says of heretics, that if they who
are baptized among them receive eternal life through the remission of their
sins, why do they come to the Church? we answer: They come for this reason,
that although they have received the baptism of Christ up to the point of
the celebration of the sacrament, yet they cannot attain to life eternal
save through the charity of unity; just as neither would those envious and
malicious ones attain to life eternal, who would not have their sins
forgiven them, even if they entertained hatred only against those from whom
they suffered wrong; since the Truth said, "If ye forgive not men their
trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses,"(2) how much
less when they were hating those towards whom they were rewarding evil for
good?(3) And yet these men, though "renouncing the world in words and not
in deeds," would not be baptized again, if they should afterwards be
corrected, but they would be made holy by the one living baptism. And this
is indeed in the Catholic Church, but not in it alone, as neither is it in
the saints alone who are built upon the rock, and of whom that one dove is
composed.(4)
CHAP. 35.--67. Castus of Sicca(5) said: He who presumes to follow
custom in despite of truth is either envious and evilly disposed towards
the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or else he is ungrateful
towards God, by whose inspiration His Church is instructed."(6)
68. If this man proved that those who differed from him, and held the
view that has since been held by the whole world under the sanction of a
Christian Council, were following custom so as to despise truth, we should
have reason for fearing these words; but seeing that this custom is found
both to have had its origin in truth and to have been confirmed by truth,
we have nothing to fear in this judgment. And yet, if they were envious or
evilly disposed towards the brethren, or ungrateful towards God, see with
what kind of men they were willing to hold communion; see what kind of men,
holding different opinions from their own, they treated as Cyprian enjoined
them at the first, not removing them from the right of communion; see by
what kind of men they were not polluted in the preservation of unity; see
how greatly the bond of peace was to be loved; see what views they hold who
bring charges against us, founded on the Council of bishops, their
predecessors, whose example they do not imitate, and by whose example, when
the rights of the case are considered, they are condemned. If it was the
custom, as this judgment bears witness, that heretics coming to the Church
should be received with the baptism which they already had, either this was
done rightly, or the evil do not pollute the good in unity. If it was
rightly done, why do they accuse the world because they are so received?
But if the evil do not pollute the good in unity, how do they defend
themselves against the charge of sacrilegious separation?
CHAP. 36.--69. Eucratius of Theni(7) said: "Our God and Lord Jesus
Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, fully laid down our
faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the law of the Church,
saying, 'Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'(8) Therefore the false and
unrighteous baptism of heretics is to be repudiated by us, and contradicted
with all solemnity of witness, seeing that from their mouth issues not
life, but poison, not heavenly grace, but blaspheming of the Trinity. And
so it is plain that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized with
perfect and Catholic baptism, that, being purified from the blasphemy of
their presumption, they may be reformed by the grace of the Holy
Spirit."(9)
70. Clearly, if the baptism is not consecrated in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it should be considered to
be of the heretics, and repudiated as unrighteous by us with all solemnity
of witness; but if we discern this name in it, we do better to distinguish
the words of the gospel from heretical error, and approve what is sound in
them, correcting what is faulty.
CHAP. 37.--71. Libosus of Vaga(10) said: "The Lord says in the gospel,
'I am the truth;'(11) He did not say, I am custom. Therefore, when the
truth is made manifest, let custom yield to truth; so that, if even in time
past any one did not baptize heretics in the X Church, he may now begin to
baptize them."(1)
72. Here he has in no way tried to show how that is the truth to which
he says that custom ought to yield. But it is of more importance that he
helps us against those who have separated themselves from unity, by
confessing that the custom existed, than that he thinks it ought to yield
to a truth which he does not show. For the custom is of such a nature, that
if it admitted sacrilegious men to the altar of Christ without the
cleansing of baptism, and polluted none of the good men who remained in
unity, then all who have cut themselves off from the same unity, in which
they could not be polluted by the contagion of any evil persons whatsoever,
have separated themselves without reason, and have committed the manifest
sacrilege of schism. But if all perished in pollution through that custom,
from what cavern do they issue without the original truth, and with all the
cunning of calumny? If, however, the custom was a fight one by which
heretics were thus received, let them abandon their madness, let them
confess their error; let them come to the Catholic Church, not that they
may be bathed again with the sacrament of baptism, but that they may be
cured from the wound of severance.
CHAP. 38.--73. Lucius of Thebaste(2) said: "I declare my judgment that
heretics, and blasphemers, and unrighteous men, who with various words
pluck away the sacred and adorable words of the Scriptures, should be held
accursed, and therefore exorcised and baptized."(3)
74. I too think that they should be held accursed, but not that
therefore they should be exorcised and baptized; for it is their own
falsehood which I hold accursed, but Christ's sacrament which I venerate.
CHAP. 39.--75. Eugenius of Ammedera(4) said: "I too pronounce this same
judgment, that heretics should be baptized."(5)
76. To him we answer: But this is not the judgment which the Church
pronounces, to which also God has now revealed in a plenary Council the
point in which ye were then still otherwise minded,(6) but because saving
charity was in you, ye remained in unity.
CHAP 40.--77. Also another Felix of Ammacura(7) said: "I too, following
the authority of the holy Scriptures, give my judgment that heretics should
be baptized, and with them those also who maintain that they have been
baptized among schismatics. For if, according to the warning of Christ, our
fountain is sealed to ourselves,(8) let all the enemies of our Church
understand that it cannot belong to others; nor can He who is the Shepherd
of our flock give the water unto salvation to two different peoples. And
therefore it is clear that neither heretics nor schismatics can receive
anything heavenly, who dare to accept from men that are sinners and aliens
from the Church. When the giver has no ground to stand upon, surely neither
can the receiver derive any profit."(9)
78. To him we answer, that the holy Scriptures nowhere have enjoined
that heretics baptized among heretics should be baptized afresh, but that
they have shown in many places that all are aliens from the Church who are
not on the rock, nor belong to the members of the dove, and yet that they
baptize and are baptized and have the sacrament of salvation without
salvation. But how our fountain is like the fountain of Paradise, in that,
like it, it flows forth even beyond the bounds of Paradise, has been
sufficiently set forth above;(10) and that "He who is the Shepherd of our
flock cannot give the water unto salvation to two different peoples," that
is, to one that is His own, and to another that is alien, I fully agree in
admitting. But does it follow that because the water is not unto salvation
it is not the identical water? For the water of the deluge was for
salvation unto those who were placed within the ark, but it brought death
to those without, and yet it was the same water. And many aliens, that is
to say, envious persons, whom Cyprian declares and proves from Scripture to
be of the party of the devil, seem as it were to be within, and yet, if
they were not without the ark, they would not perish by water. For such men
are slain by baptism, as the sweet savor of Christ was unto death to those
of whom the apostle speaks.(11) Why then do not either heretics or
schismatics receive anything heavenly, just as thorns or tares, like those
who were without the ark received indeed the rain from the floods of
heaven, but to destruction, not to salvation? And so I do not take the
pains to refute what he said in conclusion: "When the giver has no ground
to stand upon, surely neither can the receiver derive any profit," since we
also say that it does not profit the receivers while they receive it in
heresy, consenting with the heretics; and therefore they come to Catholic
peace and unity, not that they may receive baptism, but that what they had
received may begin to profit them.
CHAP. 41.--79. Also another Januarius of Muzuli(1) said: "I wonder
that, while all acknowledge that there is one baptism, all do not
understand the unity of the same baptism. For the Church and heresy are two
distinct things. If heretics have baptism we have it not; but if we have
it, heretics cannot have it. But there is no doubt that the Church alone
possesses the baptism of Christ, since it alone possesses both the favor
and the truth of Christ."(2)
80. Another might equally say, and say with equal want of truth: I
wonder that, while all confess there is one baptism, all do not understand
the unity of baptism. For righteousness and unrighteousness are two
distinct things. If the unrighteous have baptism, the righteous have it
not; but if the righteous have it, the unrighteous cannot have it. But
there is no doubt that the righteous alone possess the baptism of Christ,
since they alone possess both the favor and the truth of Christ. This is
certainly false, as they confess themselves. For those envious ones also
who are of the party of the devil, though placed within the Church, as
Cyprian tells us, and who were well known to the Apostle Paul, had baptism,
but did not belong to the members of that dove which is safely sheltered on
the rock.
CHAP. 42.--81. Adelphius of Thasbalte(3) said: "It is surely without
cause that they find fault with the truth in false and invidious terms,
saying that we rebaptize, since the Church does not rebaptize heretics, but
baptizes them."(4)
82. Truly enough it does not rebaptize them, because it only baptizes
those who were not baptized before; and this earlier custom has only been
confirmed in a later Council by a more careful perfecting of the truth.
CHAP. 43.--83. Demetrius of the Lesser Leptis(5) said: "We uphold one
baptism, because we claim for the Catholic Church alone what is her own.
But those who say that heretics baptize truly and lawfully are themselves
the men who make, not two, but many baptisms; for since heresies are many
in number, the baptisms, too, will be reckoned according to their
number."(6)
84. To him we answer: If this were so, then would as many baptisms be
reckoned as there are works of the flesh, of which the apostle says "that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God;"(7) among
which are reckoned also heresies; and so many of those very works are
tolerated within the Church as though in the chaff, and yet there is one
baptism for them all, which is not vitiated by any work of unrighteousness.
CHAP. 44.--85. Vincentius of Thibari(8) said: "We know that heretics
are worse than heathens. If they, being converted, wish to come to God,
they have assuredly a rule of truth, which the Lord by His divine precept
committed to the apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in my name, cast
out devils; '(9) and in another place, 'Go ye, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.'(10) Therefore, first by the laying on of hands in exorcism,
secondly by regeneration in baptism, they may come to the promises of
Christ; but my judgment is that in no other way should this be done."(11)
86. By what rule he asserts that heretics are worse than heathens I do
not know, seeing that the Lord says, "If he neglect to hear the Church, let
him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."(12) Is a heretic worse
even than such? I do not gainsay it. I do not, however, allow that because
the man himself is worse than a heathen, that is, than a Gentile and pagan,
therefore whatever the sacrament contains that is Christ's is mingled with
his vices and character, and perishes through the corruption of such
admixture. For if even those who depart from the Church, and become not the
followers but the founders of heresies, have been baptized before their
secession, they continue to have baptism, although, according to the above
rule, they are worse than heathens; for if on correction they return, they
do not receive it, as they certainly would do if they had lost it. It is
therefore possible that a man may be worse than a heathen, and yet that the
sacrament of Christ may not only be in him, but be not a whir inferior to
what it is in a holy and righteous man. For although to the extent of his
powers he has not preserved the sacrament, but done it violence in heart
and will, yet so far as the sacrament's own nature is concerned, it has
remained unhurt in its integrity even in the man who despised and rejected
it. Were not the people of Sodom heathens, that is to say, Gentiles? The
Jews therefore were worse, to whom the Lord says, "It shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee;"(1)
and to whom the prophet says, "Thou hast justified Sodom,"(2) that is to
say, in comparison with thee Sodom is righteous. Shall we, however,
maintain that on this account the holy sacraments which existed among the
Jews partook of the nature of the Jews themselves,--those sacraments which
the Lord Himself also accepted, and sent the lepers whom He had cleansed to
fulfill them,(3) of which when Zacharias was administering them, the angel
stood by him, and declared that his prayer had been heard while be was
sacrificing in the temple?(4) These same sacraments were both in the good
men of that time, and in those bad men who were worse than are the
heathens, seeing that they were ranked before the Sodomites for wickedness,
and yet those sacraments were perfect and holy in both.
87. For even if the Gentiles themselves could have anything holy and
right in their doctrines, our saints did not condemn it, however much the
Gentiles themselves were to be detested for their superstitions and
idolatry and pride, and the rest of their corruptions, and to be punished
with judgment from heaven unless they submitted to correction. For when
Paul the apostle also was saying something concerning God before the
Athenians, he adduced as a proof or what he said, that certain of them had
said something to the same effect,(5) which certainly would not be
condemned but recognized in them if they should come to Christ. And the
holy Cyprian uses similar evidence against the same heathens; for, speaking
of the magi, he says, "The chief of them, however, Hostanes, asserts both
that the form of the true God cannot be seen, and also that true angels
stand beside His seat. In which Plato also agrees in like manner, and,
maintaining the existence of one God, he calls the others angels or demons.
Hermes Trismegistus also speaks of one God, and confesses that He is
incomprehensible, and past our powers of estimation."(6) If, therefore,
they were to come to the perception of salvation in Christ, it surely would
not be said to them, This that ye have is bad, or false; but clearly it
would deservedly be said, Though this in you is perfect and true, yet it
would profit nothing unless ye came to the grace of Christ. If, therefore,
anything that is holy can be found and rightly approved in the very
heathens, although the salvation which is of Christ is not yet to be
granted to them, we ought not, even though heretics are worse than they, to
be moved to the desire of correcting what is bad in them belonging to
themselves, without being willing to acknowledge what is good in them of
Christ. But we will set forth from a fresh preface to consider the
remaining judgments of this Council.
BOOK VII.
IN WHICH THE REMAINING JUDGMENTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE ARE EXAMINED.
CHAP. 1.--1. Let us not be considered troublesome to our readers, if we
discuss the same question often and from different points of view. For
although the Holy Catholic Church throughout all nations be fortified by
the authority of primitive custom and of a plenary Council against those
arguments which throw some darkness over the question about baptism,
whether it can be the same among heretics and schismatics that it is in the
Catholic Church, yet, since a different opinion has at one time been
entertained in the unity of the Church itself, by men who are in no wise to
be despised, and especially by Cyprian, whose authority men endeavor to use
against us who are far removed from his charity, we are therefore compelled
to make use of the opportunity of examining and considering all that we
find on this subject in his Council and letters, in order, as it were, to
handle at some considerable length this same question, and to show how it
has more truly been the decision of the whole body of the Catholic Church,
that heretics or schismatics, who have received baptism already in the body
from which they came, should be admitted with it into the communion of the
Catholic Church, being corrected in their error and rooted and grounded in
the faith, that, so far as concerns the sacrament of baptism, there should
not be an addition of something that was wanting, but a turning to profit
of what was in them. And the holy Cyprian indeed, now that the corruptible
body no longer presseth down the soul, nor the earthly tabernacle presseth
down the mind that museth upon many things,(1) sees with greater clearness
that truth to which his charity made him deserving to attain. May he
therefore help us by his prayers, while we labor in the mortality of the
flesh as in a darksome cloud, that if the Lord so grant it, we may imitate
so far as we can the good that was in him. But if he thought otherwise than
right on any point, and persuaded certain of his brethren and colleagues to
entertain his views in a matter which he now sees clearly through the
revelation of Him whom he loved, let us, who are far inferior to his
merits, yet following, as our weakness will allow, the authority of the
Catholic Church of which he was himself a conspicuous and most noble
member, strive our utmost against heretics and schismatics, seeing that
they, being cut off from the unity which he maintained, and barren of the
love with which he was fruitful, and fallen away from the humility in which
he stood, are disavowed and condemned the more by him, in proportion as he
knows that they wish to search out his writings for purposes of treachery,
and are unwilling to imitate what he did for the maintainance of peace,--
like those who, calling themselves Nazarene Christians, and circumcising
the foreskin of their flesh after the fashion of the Jews, being heretics
by birth in that error from which Peter, when straying from the truth, was
called by Paul(2) persist in the same to the present day. As therefore they
have remained in their perversity cut off from the body of the Church,
while Peter has been crowned in the primacy of the apostles through the
glory of martyrdom, so these men, while Cyprian, through the abundance of
his love, has been received into the portion of the saints through the
brightness of his passion, are obliged to recognize themselves as exiles
from unity, and, in defence of their calumnies, set up a citizen of unity
as an opponent against the very home of unity. Let us, therefore, go on to
examine the other judgments of that Council after the same fashion.
CHAP. 2.--2. Marcus of Mactaris(3) said: "It is not to be wondered at
if heretics, being enemies and opponents of the truth, claim to themselves
what has been entrusted and vouchsafed to other men. What is marvellous is
that some of us, traitors to the truth, uphold heretics and oppose
Christians; therefore we decree that heretics should be baptized."(1)
3. To him we answer: It is indeed much more to be wondered at, and
deserving of expressions of great praise, that Cyprian and his colleagues
had such love for unity that they continued in unity with those whom they
considered to be traitors to the truth, without any apprehension of being
polluted by them. For when Marcus said, "It is marvellous that some of us,
traitors to the truth, uphold heretics and oppose Christians," it seemed
natural that he should add, Therefore we decree that communion should not
be held with them. This he did not say; but what he does say is, "Therefore
we decree that heretics should be baptized," adhering to what the peaceful
Cyprian had enjoined in the first instance, saying, "Judging no man, nor
removing any from the right of communion if he entertain a different
opinion." While, therefore, the Donatists calumniate us and call us
traditors, I should be glad to know, supposing that any Jew or pagan were
found, who, after reading the records of that Council should call both us
and them, according to their own rules, traitors to the truth, how we
should be able to make our joint defense so as to refute and wash away so
grave a charge. They give the name of traditors to men whom they were never
able in times past to convict of the offense, and whom they cannot now show
to be involved in it, being themselves rather shown to be liable to the
same charge. But what has this to do with us? What shall we say of them
who, by their own showing, are unquestionably traitors? For if we, however
falsely, are called traditors, because, as they allege, we took part in the
same communion with traditors, we have all taken part with the traditors in
question, seeing that in the time of the blessed Cyprian the party of
Donatus had not yet separated itself from unity. For the delivery of the
sacred books, from which they began to be called traditors, occurred
somewhat more than forty years after his martyrdom. If, therefore, we are
traditors, because we sprang from traditors, as they believe or pretend, we
both of us derive our origin from those other traitors. For there is no
room for saying that they did not communicate with these traitors, since
they call them men of their own party. In the words of the Council which
they are most forward to quote, "Some of us," it declares, "traitors to the
truth, uphold heretics." To this is added the testimony of Cyprian, showing
clearly that he remained in communion with them, when he says, "Judging no
man, nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain a
different opinion." For those who entertained a different opinion were the
very persons whom Marcus calls traitors to the truth because they upheld
heretics, as he maintains, by receiving them into the Church without
baptism. That it was, moreover, the custom that they should be so received,
is testified both by Cyprian himself in many passages, and by some bishops
in this Council. Whence it is evident that, if heretics have not baptism,
the Church of Christ of those days was full of traitors, who upheld them by
receiving them in this way. I would urge, therefore, that we plead our
cause in common against the charge of treason which they cannot disavow,
and therein our special case will be argued against the charge of
delivering the books, which they could not prove against us. But let us
argue the point as though they had convicted us; and what we shall answer
jointly to those who urge against both of us the general treason of our
forefathers, that we will answer to these men who urge against us that our
forefathers gave up the sacred books. For as we were dead because our
forefathers delivered up the books, which caused them to divide themselves
from us, so both we and they themselves are dead through the treason of our
forefathers, from whom both we and they are sprung. But since they say they
live, they hold that that treason does not in any way affect them,
therefore neither are we affected by the delivery of the books. And it
should be observed that, according to them, the treason is indisputable:
while, according to us, there is no truth either in the former charge of
treason, because we say that heretics also may have the baptism of Christ;
nor in the latter charge of delivering the books, because in that they were
themselves beaten. They have therefore no reason for separating themselves
by the wicked sin of schism, because, if our forefathers were not guilty of
delivering up the books, as we say, there is no charge which can affect us
at all; but if they were guilty of the sin, as these men say, then it is
just as far from affecting us as the sin of those other traitors is from
affecting either us or them. And hence, since there is no charge that can
implicate us from the unrighteousness of our forefathers, the charge
arising against them from their own schism is manifestly proved.
CHAP. 3.--4. Satius of Sicilibba(1) said: "If heretics receive
forgiveness of their sins in their own baptism, it is without reason that
they come to the Church. For since it is for sins that men are punished in
the day of judgment, heretics have nothing to fear in the judgment of
Christ if they have obtained remission of their sins."(2)
5. This too might also have been our own judgment; but let its author
beware in what spirit it was said. For it is expressed in terms of such
import, that I should feel no compunction in consenting and subscribing to
it in the same spirit in which I too believe that heretics may indeed have
the baptism of Christ, but cannot have the remission of their sins. But he
does not say, If heretics baptize or are baptized, but "If heretics," he
says, "receive forgiveness of their sins in their own baptism, it is
without reason that they come to the Church." For if we were to set in the
place of heretics those whom Cyprian knew within the Church as "renouncing
the world in words alone and not in deeds," we also might express this same
judgment, in just so many words, with the most perfect truth. If those who
only seem to be converted receive forgiveness of their sins in their own
baptism, it is without reason that they are afterwards led on to a true
conversion. For since it is for sins that men are punished in the day of
judgment, "those who renounce the world in words and not in deeds" have
nothing to fear in the judgment of Christ if they have obtained remission
of their sins. But this reasoning is only made perfect by some such context
as is formed by the addition of the words, But they ought to fear the
judgment of Christ, and to lose no time in being converted in the truth of
their hearts; and, when they have done this, it is certainly not necessary
that they should be baptized a second time. It was possible, therefore, for
them to receive baptism, and either not to receive remission of their sins,
or to be burdened again at once with the load of sins which were forgiven
them; and so the same is the case also with the heretics.
CHAP. 4.--6. Victor of Gor(3) said: "Seeing that sins are forgiven only
in the baptism of the Church, he who admits heretics to communion without
baptism is guilty of two errors contrary to reason; for, on the one hand,
he does not cleanse the heretics, and, on the other, he defiles the
Christians."(4)
7. To this we answer that the baptism of the Church exists even among
heretics, though they themselves are not within the Church; just as the
water of Paradise was found in the land of Egypt, though that land was not
itself in Paradise. We do not therefore admit heretics to communion without
baptism; and since they come with their waywardness corrected, we receive
not their sins, but the sacraments of Christ. And, in respect of the
remission of their sins, we say again here exactly what we said above. And
certainly, in regard of what he says at the end of his judgment, declaring
that he "is guilty of two errors contrary to reason, seeing that on the one
hand he does not cleanse the heretics, and on the other he defiles the
Christians," Cyprian himself is the first and the most earnest in
repudiating this with the colleagues who agreed with him. For neither did
he think that he was defiled, when, on account of the bond of peace, he
decreed that it was right to hold communion with such men, when he used the
words, "Judging no one, nor removing any from the right of communion if he
entertain a different opinion." Or, if heretics defile the Church by being
admitted to communion without being baptized, then the whole Church has
been defiled in virtue of that custom which has been so often recorded
here. And just as those men call us traditors because of our forefathers,
in whom they were able to prove nothing of the sort when they laid the
charge against them, so, if every man partakes of the character of those
with whom he may have held communion, all were then made heretics. And if
every one who asserts this is mad, it must be false that Victor says, when
he declares that "he who admits heretics to communion without baptism, not
only fails to cleanse the heretics, but pollutes the Christians as well."
Or if this be true, they were then not admitted without baptism, but those
men had the baptism of Christ, although it was given and received among
heretics, who were so admitted in accordance with that custom which these
very men acknowledged to exist; and on the same grounds they are even now
rightly admitted in the same manner.
CHAP. 7.--8. Aurelius of Utica(5) said: "Since the apostle says that we
ought not to be partakers with the sins of other men,(1) what else does he
do but make himself partaker with the sins of other men, who holds
communion with heretics without the baptism of the Church? And therefore I
pronounce my judgment that heretics should be baptized, that they may
receive remission of their sins, and so communion be allowed to them."(2)
9. The answer is: Therefore Cyprian and all those bishops were
partakers in the sins of other men, inasmuch as they remained in communion
with such men, when they removed no one from the right of communion who
entertained a different opinion. Where, then, is the Church? Then, to say
nothing for the moment of heretics,--since the words of this judgment are
applicable also to other sinners, such as Cyprian saw with lamentation to
be in the Church with him, whom, while he confuted them, he yet tolerated,-
-where is the Church, which, according to these words must be held to have
perished from that very moment by the contagion of their sins? But if, as
is the most firmly established truth, the Church both has remained and does
remain, the partaking of the sins of others, which is forbidden by the
apostle, must be considered only to consist in consenting to them. But let
heretics be baptized again, that they may receive remission of their sins,
if the wayward and the envious are baptized again, who, seeing that "they
renounced the world in words and not in deeds," were indeed able to receive
baptism, but did not obtain remission of their sins, as the Lord says, "If
ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses."(3)
CHAP. 6--10. Iambus of Germaniciana(4) said: "Those who approve the
baptism of heretics disapprove ours, so as to deny that such as are, I will
not say washed, but defiled outside the Church, ought to be baptized within
the Church."(5)
11. To him we answer, that none of our party approves the baptism of
heretics, but all the baptism of Christ, even though it be found in
heretics who are as it were chaff outside the Church, as it may be found in
other unrighteous men who are as chaff within the Church. For if those who
are baptized without the Church are not washed, but defiled, assuredly
those who are baptized outside the rock on which the Church is built are
not washed, but defiled. But all are without the said rock who hear the
words of Christ and do them not. Or if it be the case that they are washed
indeed in baptism, but yet continue in the defilement of their
unrighteousness, from which they were unwilling to be changed for the
better, the same is true also of the heretics.
CHAP. 7.--12. Lucianus of Rucuma(6) said: "It is written, 'And God saw
the light that it was good, and God divided the light from the
darkness."(7) If light and darkness can agree, then can there be something
in common between us and heretics. Therefore I give my judgment that
heretics should be baptized."(8)
13. To him the answer is: If light and darkness can agree, then can
there be something common between the righteous and unrighteous. Let him
therefore declare his judgment that those unrighteous should be baptized
afresh whom Cyprian confuted within the Church itself; or let him who can
say if those are not unrighteous "who renounce the world in words and not
in deeds."
CHAP. 8.--14. Pelagianus of Luperciana(9) said: "It is written, 'Either
the Lord is God, or Baal is God.'(10) So now either the Church is the
Church, or heresy is the Church. Further, if heresy be not the Church, how
can the baptism of the Church exist among heretics?"(11)
15. To him we may answer as follows: Either Paradise is Paradise, or
Egypt is Paradise. Further, if Egypt be not Paradise, how can the water of
Paradise be in Egypt? But it will be said to us that it extends even
thither by flowing forth from Paradise. In like manner, therefore, baptism
extends to heretics. Also we say: Either the rock is the Church, or the
sand is the Church. Further, since the sand is not the Church, how can
baptism exist with those who build upon the sand by hearing the words of
Christ and doing them not?(12) And yet it does exist with them; and in like
manner also it exists among the heretics.
CHAP. 9.--16. Jader of Midila(13) said: "We know that there is but one
baptism in the Catholic Church, and therefore we ought not to admit a
heretic unless he has been baptized in our body, lest he should think that
he has been baptized outside the Catholic Church."(1)
17. To him our answer is, that if this were said of those unrighteous
men who are outside the rock, it certainly would be falsely said. And so it
is therefore also in the case of heretics.
CHAP. 10.--18. Likewise another Felix of Marazana(2) said: "There is
one faith, one baptism,(3) but of the Catholic Church, to which alone is
given authority to baptize."(4)
19. What if another were to say as follows: One faith, one baptism, but
of the righteous only, to whom alone authority is given to baptize? As
these words might be refuted, so also may the judgment of Felix be refuted.
Do even the unrighteous who are not(5) changed in heart in baptism, while
"they renounce the world in words and not in deeds" yet belong to the
members of the Church? Let them consider whether such a Church is the
actual rock, the very dove, the bride herself without spot or wrinkle.(6)
CHAP. 11.--20. Paul of Bobba(7) said: "I for my part am not moved if
some fail to uphold the faith and truth of the Church, seeing that the
apostle says 'For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make
the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea let God be true, but every
man a liar.'(8) But if God be true, how can the truth of baptism be in the
company of heretics, where God is not?"(9)
21. To him we answer What is God among the covetous? And yet baptism
exists among them; and so also it exists among heretics. For they among
whom God is, are the temple of God. "But what agreement hath the temple of
God with idols?(10) Further, Paul considers, and Cyprian agrees with him,
that covetousness is idolatry; and Cyprian himself again associates with
his colleagues, who were robbers, but yet baptized, with great reward of
toleration.
CHAP. 12.--22. Pomponius of Dionysiana(11) said: "It is manifest that
heretics cannot baptize and give remission of sins, seeing that no power is
given to them that they should be able either to loose or bind anything on
earth."(12)
23. The answer is: This power is not given to murderers either, that
is, to those who hate their brothers. For it was not said to such as these,
"whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever
sins ye retain, they are retained."(13) And yet they baptize, and both Paul
tolerates them in the same communion of baptism, and Cyprian acknowledges
them.
CHAP. 13.--24. Venantius of Tinisa(14) said: "If a husband, going on a
journey into foreign countries, had entrusted the guardianship of his wife
to a friend, he would surely keep her that was entrusted to his care with
the utmost diligence, that her chastity and holiness might not be defiled
by any one. Christ our Lord and God, when going to the Father, committed
His bride to our care: do we keep her uncorrupt and undefiled, or do we
betray her purity and chastity to adulterers and corrupters? For he who
makes the baptism of Christ common with heretics betrays the bride of
Christ to adulterers."(15)
25. We answer: What of those who, when they are baptized, turn
themselves to the Lord with their lips and not with their heart? do not
they possess an adulterous mind? Are not they themselves lovers of the
world, which they renounce in words and not in deeds; and they corrupt good
manners through evil communications, saying, "Let us eat and drink; for to-
morrow we die?"(16) Did not the discourse of the apostle take heed even
against such as these, when he says, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the
serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds [also] should be
corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ?"(17) When, therefore,
Cyprian held the baptism of Christ to be in common with such men, did he
therefore betray the bride of Christ into the hands of adulterers, or did
he not rather recognize the necklace of the Bridegroom even on an
adulteress?
CHAP. 14.--26. Aymnius(18) of Ausuaga(19) said: "We have received one
baptism, which same also we administer; but he who says that authority is
given to heretics also to baptize, the same makes two baptisms."(20)
27. To him we answer: Why does not he also make two baptisms who
maintains that the unrighteous also can baptize? For although the righteous
and unrighteous are in themselves opposed to one another, yet the baptism
which the righteous give, such as was Paul, or such as was also Cyprian, is
not contrary to the baptism which those unrighteous men were wont to give
who hated Paul, whom Cyprian understands to have been not heretics, but bad
Catholics; and although the moderation which was found in Cyprian, and the
covetousness which was found in his colleagues, are in themselves opposed
to one another, yet the baptism which Cyprian used to give was not contrary
to the baptism which his colleagues who opposed, him used to give, but one
and the same with it, because in both cases it is He that baptizes of whom
it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth."(1)
CHAP. 15.--28. Saturninus of Victoriana(2) said: "If heretics may
baptize, they are excused and defended in doing unlawful things; nor do I
see why either Christ called them His adversaries, or the apostle called
them antichrists."(3)
29. To him we answer: We say that heretics have no authority to baptize
in the same sense in which we say that defrauders have no authority to
baptize. For not only to the heretic, but to the sinner, God says, "What
hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my
covenant in thy mouth?" To the same person He assuredly says, "When thou
sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him."(4) How much worse,
therefore, are those who did not consent with thieves, but themselves were
wont to plunder farms with treacherous deceits? Yet Cyprian did not consent
with them, though he did tolerate them in the corn-field of the Catholic
Church, lest the wheat should be rooted out together with it. And yet at
the same time the baptism which they themselves conferred was the very
selfsame baptism, because it was not of them, but of Christ. As therefore
they, although the baptism of Christ be recognized in them, were yet not
excused and defended in doing unlawful things, and Christ rightly called
those His adversaries who were destined, by persevering in such things, to
hear the doom, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity,"(5) whence also they
are called antichrists, because they are contrary to Christ while they live
in opposition to His words, so likewise is it the case with heretics.
CHAP. 16.--30. Another Saturninus of Tucca(6) said: "The Gentiles,
although they worship idols, yet acknowledge and confess the supreme God,
the Father and Creator. Against Him Marcion blasphemes, and some men do not
blush to approve the baptism of Marcion.(7) How do such priests either
maintain or vindicate the priesthood of God, who do not baptize the enemies
of God, and hold communion with them while they are thus unbaptized?"(8)
31. The answer is this: Truly when such terms as this are used, all
moderation is passed; nor do they take into consideration that even they
themselves hold communion with such men, "judging no one, nor removing any
from the right of communion if he entertain a contrary opinion." But
Saturninus has used an argument in this very judgment of his, which might
furnish materials for his admonition (if he Would pay attention to it),
that in each man what is wrong should be corrected, and what is right
should be approved, since he says, "The Gentiles, although they worship
idols, yet acknowledge and confess the supreme God, the Father and Creator.
If, then, any Gentile of such a kind should come to God, would he wish to
correct and change this point in him, that he acknowledged and confessed
God the Father and Creator? I trow not. But he would amend in him his
idolatry, which was an evil in him; and he would give to him the sacraments
of Christ, which he did not possess; and anything that was wayward which he
found in him he would correct; and anything which had been wanting he would
supply. So also in the Marcionist heretic he would acknowledge the
perfectness of baptism, he would correct his waywardness, he would teach
him Catholic truth.
CHAP. 17.--32. Marcellus of Zama(9) said: "Since sins are remitted only
in the baptism of the Church, he who does not baptize a heretic holds
communion with a sinner."(10)
33. What, does he who holds communion with one who does this not hold
communion with a sinner? But what else did all of them do, "in judging no
one, or removing from the right of communion any one who entertained a
different opinion"? Where, then, is the Church? Are those things not an
obstacle to those who are patient, and tolerate the tares lest the wheat
should be rooted out together with them? I would have them therefore say,
who have committed the sacrilege of schism by separating themselves from
the whole world, how it comes that they have in their mouths the judgment
of Cyprian, while they do not have in their hearts the patience of Cyprian.
But to this Marcellus we have an answer in what has been said above
concerning baptism and the remission of sins, explaining how there can be
baptism in a man although there be in him no remission of his sins.
CHAP. 18.--34. Irenaeus of Ululi(1) said "If the Church does not
baptize a heretic, because it is said that he has been baptized already,
then heresy is the greater."(2)
35. The answer is: On the same principle it might be said, If therefore
the Church does not baptize the covetous man, because it is said that he
has been baptized already, then covetousness is the greater. But this is
false, therefore the other is also false.
CHAP. 19.--36. Donatus of Cibaliana(3) said: "I acknowledge one Church,
and one baptism that appertains thereto. If there is any one who says that
the grace of baptism exists among heretics, he must first show and prove
that the Church exists with them."(4)
37. To him we answer: If you say that the grace of baptism is identical
with baptism, then it exists among heretics; but if baptism is the
sacrament or outward sign of grace, while the grace itself is the abolition
of sins, then the grace of baptism does not exist with heretics. But so
there is one baptism and one Church, just as there is one faith. As
therefore the good and bad, not having one hope, can yet have one baptism,
so those who have not one common Church can have one common baptism.
CHAP. 20.--38. Zozimus of Tharassa(5) said: "When a revelation has been
made of the truth, error must give way to truth; inasmuch as Peter also,
who before was wont to circumcise, gave way to Paul when he declared the
truth."(6)
39. The answer is: This may also be considered as the expression of our
judgment too, and this is just what has been done in respect of this
question of baptism. For after that the truth had been more clearly
revealed, error gave way to truth, when that most Wholesome custom was
further confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council. It is well,
however, that they so constantly bear in mind that it was possible even for
Peter, the chief of the apostles, to have been at one time minded otherwise
than the truth required; which we believe, without any disrespect to
Cyprian, to have been the case with him, and that with all our love for
Cyprian, for it is not right that he should be loved with greater love than
Peter.
CHAP. 21.--40. Julianus of Telepte(7) said: "It is written, 'A man can
receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven;'(8) if heresy is from
heaven, it can give baptism."(9)
41. Let him hear another also saying: If covetousness is from heaven,
it can give baptism. And yet the covetous do confer it; so therefore also
may the heretics.
CHAP. 22.--42. Faustus of Timida Regia(10) said: "Let not these persons
flatter themselves who favor heretics. He who interferes with the baptism
of the Church on behalf of heretics makes them Christians, and us
heretics."(11)
43. To him we answer: If any one were to say that a man who, when he
received baptism had not received remission of his sins, because he
entertained hatred towards his brother in his heart, was nevertheless not
to be baptized again when he dismissed that hatred from his heart, does
such a man interfere with the baptism of the Church on behalf of murderers,
or does he make them righteous and us murderers? Let him therefore
understand the same also in the case of heretics.
CHAP. 23.--44. Geminius of Furn:(12) said: "Certain of our colleagues
may prefer heretics to themselves, they cannot prefer them to us: and
therefore what we have once decreed we hold, that we should baptize those
who come to us from heretics."(13)
45. This man also acknowledges most openly that certain of his
colleagues entertained opinions contrary to his own: whence again and again
the love of unity is confirmed, because they were separated from one
another by no schism, till God should reveal to one or other of them
anything wherein they were otherwise minded.(1) But to him our answer is,
that his colleagues did not prefer heretics to themselves, but that, as the
baptism of Christ is acknowledged in the covetous, in the fraudulent, in
robbers, in murderers, so also they acknowledged it in heretics.
CHAP. 24.--46. Rogatianus of Nova(2) said: "Christ established the
Church, the devil heresy: how can the synagogue of Satan have the baptism
of Christ
47. To him our answer is: Is it true that because Christ established
the well-affectioned, and the devil the envious, therefore the party of the
devil, which is proved to be among the envious, cannot have the baptism of
Christ?
CHAP. 25.--48. Therapius of Bulla(4) said "If a man gives up and
betrays the baptism of Christ to heretics, what else can he be said to be
but a Judas to the Bride of Christ ?"(5)
49. How great a condemnation have we here of all schismatics, who have
separated themselves by wicked sacrilege from the inheritance of Christ
dispersed throughout the whole world, if Cyprian held communion with such
as was the traitor Judas, and yet was not defiled by them; or if he was
defiled, then were all made such as Judas; or if they were not, then the
evil deeds of those who went before do not belong to those who came after
even though they were the offspring of the same communion. Why, therefore,
do they cast in our teeth the traditores, against whom they did not prove
their charge, and do not cast in their own teeth Judas, with whom Cyprian
and his colleagues held communion? Behold the Council in which these men
are wont to boast! We indeed say, that he who approves the baptism of
Christ even in heretics, does not betray to heretics the baptism of Christ;
just in the same way as he does not betray to murderers the baptism of
Christ who approves the baptism of Christ even in murderers: but inasmuch
as they profess to prescribe to us from the decrees of this Council what
opinions we ought to hold, let them first assent to it themselves. See how
therein were compared to the traitor Judas, all who said that heretics,
although baptized in heresy, should not be baptized again. Yet with such
Cyprian was willing to hold communion, when he said, "Judging no man, nor
depriving any of the right of communion if he entertain a contrary
opinion." But that there had been men of such a sort in former times within
the Church, is made clear by the sentence in which he says: "But some one
will say, What, then, shall be done with these men who in times past were
admitted into the Church without baptism?"(6) That such had been the custom
of the Church, is testified again and again by the very men who compose
this Council. If, therefore, any one who does this "can be said to be
nothing else but a Judas to the Bride of Christ," according to the terms in
which the judgment of Therapius is couched; but Judas, according to the
teaching of the gospel, was a traitor; then all those men held communion
with traitors who at that time uttered those very judgments, and before
they uttered them they all had become traitors through that custom which at
that time was retained by the Church. All, therefore--that is to say, both
we and they themselves who were the offspring of that unity--are traitors.
But we defend ourselves in two ways: first, because without prejudice to
the right of unity, as Cyprian himself declared in his opening speech, we
do not assent to the decrees of this Council in which this judgment was
pronounced; and secondly, because we hold that the wicked in no way hurt
the good in Catholic unity, until at the last the chaff be separated from
the wheat. But our opponents, inasmuch as they both shelter themselves as
it were under the decrees of this Council, and maintain that the good
perish as by a kind of infection from communion with the wicked, have no
resource to save them from allowing both that the earlier Christians, whose
offspring they are, were traitors, inasmuch as they are convicted by their
own Council; and that the deeds of those who went before them do reflect on
them, since they throw in our teeth the deeds of our ancestors.
CHAP. 26.--50. Also another Lucius of Membresa(7) said: "It is written,
'God heareth not sinners.'(8) How can he who is a sinner be heard in
baptism?"(9)
51. We answer: How is the covetous man beard, or the robber, and
usurer, and murderer? Are they not sinners? And yet Cyprian, while he finds
fault with them in the Catholic Church, yet tolerates them.
CHAP. 27.--52. Also another Felix of Buslaceni(1) said: "In admitting
heretics to the Church without baptism, let no one place custom before
reason and truth; for reason and truth always exclude custom."(2)
53. To him our answer is: You do not show the truth; you confess the
existence of the custom. We should therefore do right in maintaining the
custom which has since been confirmed by a plenary Council, even if the
truth were still concealed, which we believe to have been already made
manifest.
CHAP. 28.--54. Another Saturninus of Abitini(3) said: "If Antichrist
can give to any one the grace of Christ, then can heretics also baptize,
who are called Antichrists."(4)
55. What if another were to say, If a murderer can give the grace of
Christ, then can they also baptize that hate their brethren who are called
murderers? For certainly he would seem in a way to speak the truth, and yet
they can baptize; in like manner, therefore, can the heretics as well.
CHAP. 29.--56. Quintus of Aggya(5) said: "He who has a thing can give
it; but what can the heretics give, who are well known to have nothing?"(6)
57. To him our answer is: If, then, any man can give a thing who has
it, it is clear that heretics can give baptism: for when they separate from
the Church, they have still the sacrament of washing which they had
received while in the Church; for when they return they do not again
receive it, because they had not lost it when they withdrew from the
Church.
CHAP. 30.--58. Another Julianus of Marcelliana(7) said: "If a man can
serve two masters, God and mammon,(8) then baptism also can serve two, the
Christian and the heretic."(9)
59. Truly, if it can serve the self-restrained and the covetous man,
the sober and the drunken, the well-affectioned and the murderer. why
should it not also serve the Christian and the heretic?--whom, indeed, it
does not really serve; but it ministers to them, and is administered by
them, for salvation to those who use it right, and for judgment to such as
use it wrong.
CHAP. 31.--60. Tenax of Horrea Celiae(10) said: "There is one baptism,
but of the Church; and where the Church is not, there baptism also cannot
be.'(11)
61. To him we answer: How then comes it that it may be where the rock
is not, but only sand; seeing that the Church is on the rock, and not on
sand?
CHAP. 32.--62. Another Victor of Assuras(12) said: "It is written, that
'there is one God and one Christ, one Church and one baptism.'(3) How then
can any one baptize in a place where there is not either God, or Christ, or
the Church?"(4)
63. How can any one baptize either in that sand, where the Church is
not, seeing that it is on the rock; nor God and Christ, seeing that there
is not there the temple of God and Christ?
CHAP. 33.--64. Donatulus of Capse(15) said "l also have always
entertained this opinion, that heretics, who have gained nothing outside
the Church, should be baptized when they are converted to the Church."(16)
65. To this the answer is: They have, indeed, gained nothing outside
the Church, but that is nothing towards salvation, not nothing towards the
sacrament. For salvation is peculiar to the good; but the sacraments are
common to the good and bad alike.
CHAP. 34.--66. Verulus of Rusiccade(17) said: "A man that is a heretic
cannot give that which he has not; much more is this the case with a
schismatic, who has lost what he had."(18) 67. We have already shown that
they still have it, because they do not lose it when they separate
themselves. For they do not receive it again when they return: wherefore,
if it was thought that they could not give it because they were supposed
not to have it, let it now be understood that they can give it, because it
is understood that they also have it.
CHAP. 35.--68. Pudentianus of Cuiculi(1) said: "My recent ordination to
the episcopate induced me, brethren, to wait and hear what my elders would
decide. For it is plain that heresies have and can have nothing; and so, if
any come from them, it is determined righteously that they should be
baptized."(2)
69. As, therefore, we have already answered those who went before, for
whose judgment this man was waiting, so be it understood that we have
answered himself.
CHAP. 36.--70. Peter of Hippo Diarrhytus(3) said: "Since there is one
baptism in the Catholic Church, it is clear that a man cannot be baptized
outside the Church; and therefore I give my judgment, that those who have
been bathed in heresy or in schism ought to be baptized on coming to the
Church."(4)
71. There is one baptism in the Catholic Church, in such a sense that,
when any have gone out from it, it does not become two in those who go out,
but remains one and the same. What, therefore, is recognized in those who
return, should also be recognized in those who received it from men who
have separated themselves, since they did not lose it when they went apart
into heresy.
CHAP. 37.--72. Likewise another Lucius of Ausafa(5) said: "According to
the motion of my mind and of the Holy Spirit, since there is one God, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Christ, and one hope, one Spirit,
one Church, there ought also to be only one baptism. And therefore I say,
both that if anything has been set on foot or done among the heretics, that
it ought to be rescinded; and also, that they who come out from among the
heretics should be baptized in the Church."(6)
73. Let it therefore be pronounced of no effect that they baptize, who
hear the words of God and do them not, when they shall begin to pass from
unrighteousness to righteousness, that is, from the sand to the rock. And
if this is not done, because what there was in them of Christ was not
violated by their unrighteousness, then let this also be understood in the
case of heretics: for neither is there the same hope in the unrighteous, so
long as they are on the sand, as there is in those who are upon the rock;
and yet there is in both the same baptism, although as it is said that
there is one hope, so also is it said that there is one baptism.
CHAP. 38.--74. Felix of Gurgites(7) said: "I give my judgment, that,
according to the precepts of the holy Scriptures, those who have been
unlawfully baptized outside the Church by heretics, if they wish to flee to
the Church, should obtain the grace of baptism where it is lawfully
given."(8)
75. Our answer is: Let them indeed begin to have in a lawful manner to
salvation what they before had unlawfully to destruction; because each man
is justified under the same baptism, when he has turned himself to God with
a true heart, as that under which he was condemned, when on receiving it he
"renounced the world in words alone, and not in deeds."
CHAP. 39.--76. Pusillus of Lamasba(9) said: "I believe that baptism is
not unto salvation except within the Catholic Church. Whatsoever is without
the Catholic Church is mere pretense."(10)
77. This indeed is true, that "baptism is not unto salvation except
within the Catholic Church." For in itself it can indeed exist outside the
Catholic Church as well; but there it is not unto salvation, because there
it does not work salvation; just as that sweet savor of Christ is certainly
not unto salvation in them that perish,(11) though from a fault not in
itself, but in them. But "whatsoever is without the Catholic Church is mere
pretense," yet only in so far as it is not Catholic. But there may be
something Catholic outside the Catholic Church, just as the name of Christ
could exist outside the congregation of Christ, in which name he who did
not follow with the disciples was casting out devils.(12) For there may be
pretense also within the Catholic Church, as is unquestionable in the case
of those "who renounce the world in words and not in deeds," and yet the
pretense is not Catholic. As, therefore, there is in the Catholic Church
something which is not Catholic, so there may be something which is
Catholic outside the Catholic Church.
CHAP. 40.--78. Salvianus of Gazaufala(1) said: "It is generally known
that heretics have nothing; and therefore they come to us, that they may
receive what previously they did not have."(2)
79. Our answer is: On this theory, the very men who rounded heresies
are not heretics themselves, because they separated themselves from the
Church, and certainly they previously had what they received there. But if
it is absurd to say that those are not heretics through whom the rest
became heretics, it is therefore possible that a heretic should have what
turns to his destruction through his evil use of it.
CHAP. 41.--80. Honoratus of Tucca(3) a said: "Since Christ is the
truth, we ought to follow the truth rather than custom; that we may
sanctify by the baptism of the Church the heretics who come to us, simply
because they could receive nothing outside."(4)
81. This man, too, is a witness to the custom, in which he gives us the
greatest assistance, whatever else he may appear to say against us. But
this is not the reason why heretics come over to us, because they have
received nothing outside, but that what they did receive may begin to be of
use to them: for this it could not be outside in any wise.
CHAP. 42.--82. Victor of Octavus(5) said: "As ye yourselves also know,
I have not been long appointed a bishop, and therefore I waited for the
counsel of my seniors. This therefore I express as my opinion, that
whosoever comes from heresy should undoubtedly be baptized."(6)
83. What, therefore, has been answered to those for whom he waited, may
be taken as the answer also to himself.
CHAP. 43.--84. Clarus of Mascula(7) said: "The sentence of our Lord
Jesus Christ is manifest, when He sent forth His apostles, and gave the
power which had been given Him of His Father to them alone, whose
successors we are, governing the Church of the Lord with the same power,
and baptizing those who believe the faith. And therefore heretics, who,
being without, have neither power nor the Church of Christ, cannot baptize
any one with His baptism."(8)
85. Are, then, ill-affectioned murderers successors of the apostles?
Why, then, do they baptize? Is it because they are not outside? But they
are outside the rock, to which the Lord gave the keys, and on which He said
that He would build His Church.(9)
CHAP. 44.--86. Secundianus of Thambei(10) said: "We ought not to
deceive heretics by our too great forwardness, that not having been
baptized in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having therefore not
received remission of their sins, they may not impute to us, when the day
of judgment comes, that we have been the cause of their not being baptized,
and not having obtained the indulgence of the grace of God. On which
account, since there is one Church and one baptism, when they are converted
to us, let them receive together with the Church the baptism also of the
Church."(11)
87. Nay, when they are transferred to the rock, and joined to the
society of the Dove, let them receive the remission of their sins, which
they could not have outside the rock and outside the Dove, whether they
were openly without, like the heretics, or apparently within, like the
abandoned Catholics; of whom, however, it is clear that they both have and
confer baptism without remission of sins, when even from themselves it is
received by men, who, being not changed for the better, honor God with
their lips, while their heart is far from Him.(12) Yet it is true that
there is one baptism, just as there is one Dove, though those who are not
in the one communion of the Dove may yet have baptism in common.
CHAP. 45.--88.--Also another Aurelius of Chullabi(13) said: "The
Apostle John has laid down in his epistle the following precept: 'If there
come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your
house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is
partaker of his evil deeds.'(14) How can such men be admitted without
consideration into the house of God, who are forbidden to be admitted into
our private house? Or how can we hold communion with them without the
baptism of Christ, when, if we only so much as bid them God speed, we are
partakers of their evil deeds?"(1)
89. In respect of this testimony of John there is no need of further
disputation, since it has no reference at all to the question of baptism,
which we are at present discussing. For he says, "If any come unto you, and
bring not the doctrine of Christ." But heretics leaving the doctrine of
their error are converted to the doctrine of Christ, that they may be
incorporated with the Church, and may begin to belong to the members of
that Dove whose sacrament they previously had; and therefore what
previously they lacked belonging to it is given to them, that is to say,
peace and charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of
faith unfeigned.(2) But what they previously had belonging to the Dove is
acknowledged, and received without any depreciation; just as in the
adulteress God recognises His gifts, even when she is following her lovers;
because when after her fornication is corrected she is turned again to
chastity, those gifts are not laid to her charge, but she herself is
corrected.(3) But just as Cyprian might have defended himself if this
testimony of John had been cast in his teeth whilst he was holding
communion with men like these, so let those against whom it is spoken make
their own defense. For to the question before us, as I said before, it has
no reference at all. For John says that we are not to bid God speed to men
of strange doctrine; but Paul the apostle says, with even greater
vehemence, "If any man that is called a brother be covetous, or a
drunkard," or anything of the sort, with such an one no not to eat;(4) and
yet Cyprian used to admit to fellowship, not with his private table, but
with the altar of God, his colleagues who were usurers, and treacherous,
and fraudulent, and robbers. But in what manner this may be defended has
been sufficiently set forth in other books already.
CHAP. 46.--90. Litteus(5) of Gemelli(6) said: "'If the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.'(7) Since, therefore, it is clear
that heretics can give no light(8) to any one, as being blind themselves,
therefore their baptism is invalid."(9)
91. Neither do we say that it is valid for salvation so long as they
are heretics, just as it is of no value to those murderers of whom we
spoke, so long as they hate their brethren: for they also themselves are in
darkness, and if any one follows them they fall together into the ditch;
and yet it does not follow that they either have not baptism or are unable
to confer it.
CHAP. 47.--92. Natalis of Oea(10) said: "It is not only I myself who am
present, but also Pompeius of Sabrati,(10) and Dioga of Leptis Magna,(10)
who commissioned me to represent their views, being absent indeed in body,
but present in spirit, who deliver this same judgment as our colleagues,
that heretics cannot have communion with us, unless they have been baptized
with the baptism of the Church."(11)
93. He means, I suppose, that communion which belongs to the society of
the Dove; for in the partaking of the sacraments they doubtless held
communion with them, judging no man, nor removing any from the right of
communion if he held a different opinion. But with whatever reference he
spoke, there is no great need for these words being refuted. For certainly
a heretic would not be admitted to communion, unless he had been baptized
with the baptism of the Church. But it is clear that the baptism of the
Church exists even among heretics if it be consecrated with the words of
the gospel; just as the gospel itself belongs to the Church, and has
nothing to do with their waywardness, but certainly retains its own
holiness.
CHAP. 48.--94. Junius of Neapolis(12) said: "I do not depart from the
judgment which we once pronounced, that we should baptize heretics on their
coming to the Church."(13)
95. Since this man has adduced no argument nor proof from the
Scriptures, he need not detain us long.
CHAP. 49.--96. Cyprian of Carthage said: "My opinion has been set forth
with the greatest fullness in the letter which has been written to our
colleague Jubaianus,(14) that heretics being called enemies of Christ and
antichrists according to the testimony of the gospel and the apostles,
should, when they come to the Church, be baptized with the one baptism of
the Church, that from enemies they may be made friends, and that from
antichrists they may be made Christians."(15)
97. What need is there of further disputation here, seeing that we have
already handled with the utmost care that very epistle to Jubaianus of
which he has made mention? And as to what he has said here, let us not
forget that it might be said of all unrighteous men who, as he himself
bears witness, are in the Catholic Church, and whose power of possessing
and of conferring baptism is not questioned by any of us. For they come to
the Church, who pass to Christ from the party of the devil, and build upon
the rock, and are incorporated with the Dove, and are placed in security in
the garden enclosed and fountain sealed; where none of those are found who
live contrary to the precepts of Christ, wherever they may seem to be. For
in the epistle which he wrote to Magnus, while discussing this very
question, he himself warned us at sufficient length, and in no ambiguous
terms, of what kind of society we should understand that the Church
consists. For he says, in speaking of a certain man, "Let him become an
alien and profane, an enemy to the peace and unity of the Lord, not
dwelling in the house of God, that is to say, in the Church of Christ, in
which none dwell save those who are of one heart and of one mind."(1) Let
those, therefore, who would lay injunctions on us on the authority of
Cyprian, pay attention for a time to what we here say. For if only those
who are of one heart and of one mind dwell in the Church of Christ, beyond
all question those were not dwelling in the Church of Christ, however much
they might appear to be within, who of envy and contention were announcing
Christ without charity; by whom he understands, not the heretics and
schismatics who are mentioned by the Apostle Paul,(2) but false brethren
holding conversation with him within, who certainly ought not to have
baptized, because they were not dwelling in the Church, in which he himself
says that none dwell save those who are of one heart and of one mind:
unless, indeed, any one be so far removed from the truth as to say that
those were of one heart and of one mind who were envious and malevolent,
and contentious without charity; and yet they used to baptize: nor did the
detestable waywardness which they displayed in any degree violate or
diminish from the sacrament of Christ, which was handled and dispensed by
them.
CHAP. 50.--98. It is indeed worth while to consider the whole of the
passage in the aforesaid letter to Magnus, which he has put together as
follows: "Not dwelling," he says, "in the house of God--that is to say, in
the Church of Christ--in which none dwell save those that are of one heart
and of one mind, as the Holy Spirit says in the Psalms, speaking of. 'God
that, maketh men to be of one mind m an house. Finally, the very sacrifices
of the Lord declare that Christians are united among themselves by a firm
and inseparable love for one another. For when the Lord calls bread, which
is compacted together by the union of many grains, His body,(4) He is
signifying one people, whom He bore, compacted into one body; and when He
calls wine, which is pressed out from a multitude of branches and clusters
and brought together into one, His blood,(5) He also signifies one flock
joined together by the mingling of a multitude united into one." These
words of the blessed Cyprian show that he both understood and loved the
glory of the house of God, which house he asserted to consist of those who
are of one heart and of one mind, proving it by the testimony of the
prophets and the meaning of the sacraments, and in which house certainly
were not found those envious persons, those malevolent without charity, who
nevertheless used to baptize. From whence it is clear that the sacrament of
Christ can both be in and be administered by those who are not in the
Church of Christ, in which Cyprian himself bears witness that there are
none dwelling save those who are of one heart and of one mind. Nor can it
indeed be said that they are allowed to baptize so long as they are
undetected, seeing that the Apostle Paul did not fail to detect those of
whose ministry he bears unquestionable testimony in his epistle, saying
that he rejoices that they also were proclaiming Christ. For he says of
them, "Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein
do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."(6)
CHAP. 51.--99. Taking all these things, therefore, into consideration,
I think that I am not rash in saying that there are some in the house of
God after such a fashion as not to be themselves the very house of God,
which is said to be built upon a rock,(7) which is called the one dove,(8)
which is styled the beauteous bride without spot or wrinkle,(9) and a
garden enclosed, a fountain sealed, a well of living water, an orchard of
pomegranates with pleasant fruits;(10) which house also received the keys,
and the power of binding and loosing.(11) If any one shall neglect this
house when it arrests and corrects him, the Lord says, "Let him be unto
thee as an heathen man and a publican."(1) Of this house it is said, "Lord,
I have loved the habitation of Thy house, and the place where Thine honor
dwelleth;"(2) and, "He maketh men to be of one mind in an house;"(3) and,
"I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the
Lord;"(4) and, "Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house, O Lord; they will
be still praising Thee;"(5) with countless other passages to the same
effect. This house is also called wheat, bringing forth fruit with
patience, some thirty-fold, some sixtyfold, and some an hundredfold.(6)
This house is also in vessels of gold and of silver,(7) and in precious
stones and imperishable woods. To this house it is said, "Forbearing one
another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace;"(8) and, "For the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."(9)
For this house is composed of those that are good and faithful, and of the
holy servants of God dispersed throughout the world, and bound together by
the unity of the Spirit, whether they know each other personally or not.
But we hold that others are said to be in the house after such a sort, that
they belong not to the substance of the house, nor to the society of
fruitful and peaceful justice, but only as the chaff is said to be among
the corn; for that they are in the house we cannot deny, when the apostle
says, "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of
silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to
dishonor."(10) Of this countless multitude are found to be not only the
crowd which within the Church afflicts the hearts of the saints, who are so
few in comparison with so vast a host, but also the heresies and schisms
which exist in those who have burst the meshes of the net, and may now be
said to be rather out of the house than in the house, of whom it is said,
"They went out from us, but they were not of us."(11) For they are more
thoroughly separated, now that they are also divided from us in the body,
than are those who live within the Church in a carnal and worldly fashion,
and are separated from us in the spirit.
CHAP. 52.--100. Of all these several classes, then, no one doubts
respecting those first, who are in the house of God in such a sense as
themselves to be the house of God, whether they be already spiritual, or as
yet only babes nurtured with milk, but still making progress with
earnestness of heart, towards that which is spiritual, that such men both
have baptism so as to be of profit to themselves, and transmit it to those
who follow their example so as to benefit them; but that in its
transmission to those who are false, whom the Holy Spirit shuns, though
they themselves, so far as lies with them, confer it so as to be of profit,
yet the others receive it in vain, since they do not imitate those from
whom they receive it. But they who are in the great house after the fashion
of vessels to dishonor, both have baptism without profit to themselves, and
transmit it without profit to those who follow their example: those,
however, receive it with profit. who are united in heart and character, not
to their ministers, but to the holy house of God. But those who are more
thoroughly separated, so as to be rather out of the house than in the
house, have baptism without any profit to themselves; and, moreover, there
is no profit to those who receive it from them, unless they be compelled by
urgent necessity to receive it, and their heart in receiving it does not
depart from the bond of unity: yet nevertheless they possess it, though the
possession be of no avail; and it is received from them, even when it is of
no profit to those who so receive it, though, in order that it may bet come
of use, they must depart from their heresy or schism, and cleave to that
house of God. And this ought to be done, not only by heretics and
schismatics, but also by those who are in the house through communion in
the sacraments, yet so as to be outside the house through the perversity of
their character. For so the sacrament begins to be of profit even to
themselves, which previously was of no avail.
CHAP. 53.--101. The question is also commonly raised, whether baptism
is to be held valid which is received from one who had not himself received
it, if, from some promptings of curiosity, he had chanced to learn how it
ought to be conferred; and whether it makes no difference in what spirit
the recipient receives it, whether in mockery or in sincerity: if in
mockery, whether the difference arises when the mockery is of deceit, as in
the Church, or in what is thought to be the Church; or when it is in jest,
as in a play: and which is the more accursed, to receive it deceitfully in
the Church, or in heresy or schism without deceit, that is to say, with
full sincerity of heart: or whether it be worse to receive it deceitfully
in heresy or in good faith in a play, if any one were to be moved by a
sudden feeling of religion in the midst of his acting. And yet, if we
compare such an one even with him who receives it deceitfully in the
Catholic Church itself, I should be surprised if any one were to doubt
which of the two should be preferred; for I do not see of what avail the
intention of him who gives in truth can be to him who receives deceitfully.
But let us consider, in the case of some one also giving it in deceit, when
both the given and the recipient are acting deceitfully in the unity of the
Catholic Church itself, whether tiffs should rather be acknowledged as
baptism, or that which is given in a play, if any one should be found who
received it faithfully from a sudden impulse of religion: or whether it be
not true that, so far as the men themselves are concerned, there is a very
great difference between the believing recipient in a play, and the mocking
recipient in the Church; but that in regard to the genuineness of the
sacrament there is no difference. For if it makes no difference in respect
to the genuineness of the sacrament within the Catholic Church itself,
whether certain persons celebrate it in truth or in deceit, so long as both
still celebrate the same thing, I cannot see why it should make a
difference outside, seeing that he who receives it is not cloaked by his
deceit, but he is changed by his religious impulse. Or have those truthful
persons among whom it is celebrated more power for the confirmation of the
sacrament, than those deceitful men by whom and in whom it is celebrated
can exert for its invalidation? And yet, if the deceit be subsequently
brought to light, no one seeks a repetition of the sacrament; but the fraud
is either punished by excommunication or set right by penitence.
102. But the safe course for us is, not to advance with any rashness of
judgment in setting forth a view which has neither been started in any
regionary Council of the Catholic Church nor established in a plenary one;
but to assert, with all the confidence of a voice that cannot be gainsaid,
what has been confirmed by the consent of the universal Church, under the
direction of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, if any
one were to press me--supposing I were duly seated in a Council in which a
question were raised on points like these--to declare what my own opinion
was, without reference to the previously expressed views of others, whose
judgment I would rather follow, if I were under the influence of the same
feelings as led me to assert what I have said before, I should have no
hesitation in saying that all men possess baptism who have received it in
any place, from any sort of men, provided that it were consecrated in the
words of the gospel, and received without deceit on their part with some
degree of faith; although it would be of no profit to them for the
salvation of their souls if they were without charity, by which they might
be grafted into the Catholic Church. For "though I have faith," says the
apostle, "so that I could remove mountains, but have not charity, I am
nothing."(1) Just as already, from the established decrees of our
predecessors, I have no hesitation in saying that all those have baptism
who, though they receive it deceitfully, yet receive it in the Church, or
where the Church is thought to be by those in whose society it is received,
of whom it was said, "They went out from us."(2) But when there was no
society of those who so believed, and when the man who received it did not
himself hold such belief, but the whole thing was done as a farce, or a
comedy, or a jest,--if I were asked whether the baptism which was thus
conferred should be approved, I should declare my opinion that we ought to
pray for the declaration of God's judgment through the medium of some
revelation seeking it with united prayer and earnest groanings of suppliant
devotion, humbly deferring all the time to the decision of those who were
to give their judgment after me, in case they should set forth anything as
already known and determined. And, therefore, how much the more must I be
considered to have given my opinion now without prejudice to the utterance
of more diligent research or authority higher than my own!
CHAP. 54.--103. But now I think that it is fully time for me to bring
to their due termination these books also on the subject of baptism, in
which our Lord God has shown to us, through the words of the peaceful
Bishop Cyprian and his brethren who agreed with him, how great is the love
which should be felt for catholic unity; so that even where they were
otherwise minded until God should reveal even this to them,(3) they should
rather bear with those who thought differently from themselves, than sever
themselves from them by a wicked schism; whereby the mouths of the
Donatists are wholly closed, even if we say nothing of the followers of
Maximian. For if the wicked pollute the good in unity, then even Cyprian
himself already found no Church to which he could be joined. But if the
wicked do not infect the good in unity, then the sacrilegious Donatist has
no ground to set before himself for separation. But if baptism is both
possessed and transferred by the multitude of others who work the works of
the flesh, of which it is said, that "they which do such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God,"(1) then it is possessed and transferred also
by heretics, who are numbered among those works; because they could have
transferred it had they remained, and did not lose it by their secession.
But men of this kind confer it on their fellows as fruitlessly and
uselessly as the others who resemble them, inasmuch as they shall not
inherit the kingdom of God. And as, when those others are brought into the
right path, it is not that baptism begins to be present, having been absent
before, but that it begins to profit them, having been already in them; so
is it the case with heretics as well. Whence Cyprian and those who thought
with him could not impose limits on the Catholic Church, which they would
not mutilate. But in that they were otherwise minded we feet no fear,
seeing that we too share in their veneration for Peter; yet in that they
did not depart from unity we rejoice, seeing that we, like them, are
rounded on the rock.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF I/IV, Schaff). The digital version is by The Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 20108
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address: sysop@ewtn.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------